Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Goldsmiths Company Order Confirmation Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask a question about business? The Prime Minister said yesterday that on Tuesday there would be a discussion on necessitous areas. May I ask the Chief Whip what will be the form of the Question that will be put to the House on that occasion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell: That is in the hands of the Opposition.

Captain BENN: Will it be possible to raise any other topic on that motion?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: I think not.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving some little time to the discussion of the question of mandates? Would it not be possible to frame the Motion in such a form as to permit anyone who wished to raise another subject to do so?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: will certainly consider that.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th day of December, 1926, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely

Mercantile Marine Memorial Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Naval Reserve (Officers) Bill, Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill,

Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland Bill, without Amendment.

Electricity (Supply) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Lords Amendments to he considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Guarantee of Palestine and East African Loan.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, in page 3, line n, at the end, to insert the words,
(4) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed in the execution of all works carried out under any loan raised in pursuance of this Act.
This Amendment is introduced to meet views expressed widely on the other side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Purposes of East African Loan.)

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words "including the raising of the loans."
This is purely technical. I moved to omit the words on the Committee stage in order to enable a Report stage to be taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for proprietor of newspaper.)

"The proprietor of any newspaper shall not be liable to be convicted under this Act if it is shown to the satisfaction of the courts before which he is charged that the publication referred to in the charge was made without his knowledge, authority, or consent."—[Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I want to apply to this Bill the law as it now stands with regard to libel. Under the decision of a very long case in the law courts, the Queen v. Holbrook, which took place 50 years ago, we established as a point of law that no proprietor of a newspaper could be held criminally liable for a libel inserted without his knowledge, authority or consent, and that decision was upheld by two of the most eminent judges who ever sat on the English bench, Lord Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice Lush. I am now speaking on behalf of provincial newspaper proprietors, who are generally innocent of any publication which would be calculated to injure public morals, because divorce court proceedings are not the sort of reports we give in the provinces. It is conceivable that a report might appear in a provincial newspaper and the proprietor and publisher would be held liable for something that was published without any knowledge on their part. If a man is going through Regent Street in a motor-car and his driver knocks down and kills a foot passenger, the driver may be prosecuted for manslaughter, but it would be absurd to suggest that the man sitting in the car could be held liable for any criminal neglect, particularly if he could show that he had engaged a responsible and capable driver. In the selection of editors and reporters of newspapers in the provinces we exercise great discretion. We have to study a man's past and if we find that he is not a man who is given to writing libellous matter he is appointed in charge of the paper. It is conceivable that a man living miles away from the place where the paper is published might find himself under this Act suddenly faced with a criminal prosecution for something which is held to be contrary to public morals. I feel that proprietors are entitled to this protection. It seems to me self-evident that it is a matter of justice to them that a Clause of this sort should be inserted.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
The position of the proprietor of a newspaper is rather different from that of the editor. As the Bill left the Committee, the reporter is no longer liable, under a Clause inserted by the Home Office, and the onus falls on the editor of the newspaper. In a civil action for damages brought against a newspaper for libel, it might possibly be argued that
the editor may be a man of straw, therefore it is just that the proprietor should be liable also in order that the plaintiff may recover any damages the courts may award him. But this is a case of criminal proceedings, and the person whom the Bill now holds responsible is not the reporter but the editor. Therefore if, according to this Clause, it is provided that the proprietor shows that the publication was made without his knowledge, authority or consent, it seems just that he should be exonerated from any possible criminal proceedings.

Major KINDERSLEY: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I am going to ask the House not to accept the Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved it said lie was not interested in divorce cases. He only referred to cases covered by Sub-section (1) (a), which is really only a repetition of the present common law, and therefore at present the proprietor of a newspaper has this liability. Then the editor may sometimes be the proprietor, and it seems to me in those cases it would be entirely unjust that he should be free from liability for the action of his agent. Surely there might be cases where a newspaper might have made a practice of publishing reports, the publication of which this Bill is framed to prevent. There might be a series of reports. It might make a practice of it, and in those cases it would be entirely just that the proprietor should be the person to suffer. As the Bill now stands, the proprietor and the editor and all the persons liable have considerable protection, because, first of all, you have to get the fiat of the Attorney-General to start any action, and secondly, you have trial by jury, and if a proprietor were entirely innocent the jury probably would not convict. On all those grounds I ask the House not to accept the Clause.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I join in the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the House will not accept the Amendment. The key to the whole of this new Clause rests upon the opposition to the Bill as a whole, and one can very well understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put forward any-words designed to upset the whole Measure. I will give just a few reasons in favour of the rejection of this Clause.
It appears to me that editors and other journalists will write for their newspaper exactly what the proprietors want. The danger that I see in this connection is that if such a Clause were inserted and the Bill became an Act of Parliament, it would be quite easy for the proprietors of a newspaper to set up in a contract of engagement with the editor or the journalists, a condition throwing upon them responsibility in law for any action they might take under this Measure. That would be a very nice get-out. I am informed on good authority that editors and journalists do not necessarily Personally agree with the policy of the newspaper with which they are connected. There are Liberals employed as editors of Tory newspapers and vice versa, and there will he a few Socialists employed as editors and journalists on papers of both kinds. They do not write their personal opinions, because they know full well what the proprietors of the newspaper want. Therefore, the responsibility for the tone and for the theme of the whole newspaper rests upon the proprietors, who determine the policy of the paper. If the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the new Clause were to hold good, it seems to me that if the form of contract which I have indicated were entered into, the engagement of a journalist or editor—

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Can he enter into a contract which would protect him from criminal proceedings?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and learned Member knows more about the law than I do, but I have seen some strange contracts entered into between employers and workpeople, and because the work-people have not the money with which to prosecute the ease in a court of law, it goes by default. It ought to be clear to the hon. and learned Member that the law may be on the side of the journalist, but the journalist has not the money with which to fight his way in legal proceedings, and he has no remedy. I ask the House to reject this new Clause, because it is merely a Clause designed to torpedo the Bill.

Major ASTOR: I should like to oppose this new Clause. This Bill seems to put added responsibility upon the pressman.
He already has to guard against libel, which alone is a difficult task. He has to bear in mind the common law as regards cases of indecency. Now he has to take further responsibility under this Bill. If something is to be achieved by this Bill, it is difficult to see how we can avoid putting more responsibility upon him; but the term "pressman" covers really a chain of responsibility of which the reporter, the sub-editor, the editor, the printer and the publisher of the newspaper all form links. In the majority of cases one realises that items of news and reports may easily be put into a newspaper without the consent or authority of the proprietor. In that case I hardly think that he would be blamed, although he might be regarded as ultimately responsible; but if his newspaper persisted in flouting the provisions of this Bill, I cannot see who else would be responsible except the proprietor.
To a certain extent the same thing applies to the editors. Anyone who has seen the rush in a newspaper office at the time the paper is going to press, will, I am sure, admit that a paragraph or other item of news might slip past the most vigilant editor. In that case I think that he would be absolved from blame in the actual case, although he, too, might be held ultimately responsible. In such a case as that, it would surely be very unfair to blame either the printer or the publisher. They have other tasks to perform than checking what come from the editorial department. Then we have the other end of the chain of responsibility. I would quote a case which is not exactly an historical case, although it is a well-known one, of a perfectly respectable and reputable newspaper which published some years ago a most regrettable item of news in its Parliamentary report. The news was entirely unfounded. It was traced to a compositor who had a grievance. In such a case, surely, only one man could be held responsible. If this Bill were to be applied in any spirit of vindictiveness, great injustice could be done to innocent members of an honourable profession; but I do not think we need anticipate any such vindictiveness. I see no danger of it whatever, nor can I imagine the Attorney-General singling out an unoffending subordinate of a news-
paper and pointing to him as the man responsible to be prosecuted.
I should be grateful for enlightenment on this point: I am not sure whether a charge could be brought against the news-paper or company as a whole or whether it is necessary actually to cite an individual. I trust that the mere existence of this Bill will obviate any necessity for its use. I certainly do not believe that the Bill will be applied in any unjust spirit or to any but flagrant cases. If it were, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), like everybody else, would wish to take his part in combatting an attack upon a profession of which he is a distinguished member. I think it is very desirable to keep the chain of responsibility intact. For that reason I shall vote against the Amendment, and for the same reason I shall vote against the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short)—that is, after the word "person," insert the words "other than an editor, printer or publisher."

Mr. GROTRIAN: I think most hon. Members will agree that it would be very unjust, if the proprietor of a newspaper, say, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), sitting in Westminster, were convicted for something that occurred in Portsmouth. I do not believe that any such conviction could take place, and, therefore, I do not think we shall suffer if the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) does not accept the Amendment. Before a man can be criminally convicted, guilty knowledge of what was going on or what was going to take place must be brought home to him by the prosecution. Surely, a Bill like this is not going to abolish the doctrine of mens rea. I do not believe that is intended. I do not believe it can be done in this way. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend's fears are more or less unfounded. Speaking as a newspaper proprietor myself, I shall feel great hesitation in supporting this new Clause, because I do not believe that what he fears can come about.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I hope the House will reject this Amendment. The Bill has taken a very important step in the interests of the moral standards of the
nation, and this Amendment attempts to absolve those who are responsible for a trend which has, unfortunately, been intensified by a large section of the Press adverse to the interests of that moral standard. Some years ago a certain section of the press in Scotland adopted the policy of reproducing facts appertaining to extraordinary crimes which took place, and engaged crime experts to deal with these reports. Another section of the press in the same city urged the Government to check this propensity, and fortunately the Government took the necessary steps to see that this was done. The reason for this Bill is that, instead of righteousness flowing through the land like a river, we have had nothing but a stream of pollution through every part of the country. There is no doubt it has led to a deterioration in the standards of public morality.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with matters which contemn the whole Measure. The Amendment now before the House is concerned with the responsibilities of the proprietor of a newspaper.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want the proprietors of a newspaper, who take a particular interest in dictating the policy, made responsible, not the employés, who very often have to follow a course which in their opinion is derogatory to the interests of the staff themselves and of the public. I hope the new Clause will be rejected so that the proprietors individually and collectively shall be responsible. If we fasten the responsibility upon the proprietors themselves a great deal more care will be taken by them in the conduct of the paper, and those who are concerned in earning their daily bread will have the knowledge that the proprietors themselves are to be responsible for what appears in the paper.

Commander WILLIAMS: When I first read this new Clause I thought it was a very commonsense view to take, and that it was one which we could with advantage add to the Bill, but when I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) say that he was moving it as an opponent of the Bill I became slightly suspicious. We all know him as a highly honourable opponent of
any Measure he objects to, but when he puts forward a proposal as an opponent of the Measure, I, as a supporter of the Bill, cannot do otherwise than consider the matter once again. He told us that if a motor driver ran over a man that the driver himself was responsible, but there are circumstances when the driver would not be held responsible. If he had been urged to drive unnecessarily fast by his employer, some responsibility must necessarily rest on the employer. On further consideration I am not quite certain as to whether there is not some indirect attempt to make it possible for an editor to be a sort of smoke-screen for the owner of the paper. It is a well understood thing, it is generally followed by the whole of the proprietors of newspapers in the country, never under any circumstances to shelter themselves behind the mistakes made by their employés. It has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) and by the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), both of whom know the details of this subject very well, that there is no real necessity for this new Clause, that it would be better to wipe it out altogether, and, on the whole, I am inclined to vote against the Amendment. I cannot see that it will help or strengthen the Bill.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I only want to say one word, and to ask one question. I want to know whether the word "proprietor" in the new Clause will be held to cover a small shareholder in a. newspaper. A shareholder is legally a proprietor. Will they come under the provisions of the Bill? If they do not, I am quite satisfied. If not, I think some provision should be put in to make it quite clear that the individual who controls the paper, who has the sole controlling interest, shall be liable.

Mr. OLIVER: There are many papers which have built up a large circulation by the publication of lurid accounts of actions in the law Courts of this country, by means of which substantial profits have been made. What is going to happen in the case of an editor who desires to maintain this character of the paper on which its circulation has been built up. I do not say that he will break the law, but if he does break the law are the proprietors of the paper to be
immune from any liability under the Amendment which has been moved.

Major BIRCHALL: I hope the Amendment will be rejected. The position which has been put forward by the supporters of this new Clause would lead us to believe that the least important person in connection with a newspaper is the proprietor, but how anyone can hold that view after what has occurred in the last week or two passes my comprehension. May I give the House one fact which answers the arguments of those who are supporting this new Clause. In the case of one Sunday newspaper, which claims to have one of the largest circulations in the country, a careful census has been taken of the contents of the' paper for some years, at a given period of the year, and the result has been this, that one-third of the newspaper has been occupied by advertisements, and leaving that out of account altogether, one-half of the rest of the space has been entirely occupied by matters of crime of every kind, very largely connected with sexual offences, and that amount of space has been standardised.
My point is this: When a celebrated case is on, we expect certain newspapers to devote a large amount of space to it. The amount of space devoted by this particular paper is not increased at such a time, showing to my mind, that there is quite a definite policy to devote one half of its space to the particular kind of matter to which we object. If that be the case, it is impossible to say that the owner of that paper, who happens to be a very well known individual, is not liable and responsible for the contents of this paper. It cannot be that week after week half of the paper is given up to stuff which degrades and pollutes the reader's mind, and that that is done by ignorance, by inadvertence, by oversight or anything of that sort. I believe that it is a deliberate policy, and I hope that this particular Clause, which would protect the owners, who are more responsible than anyone else connected with a paper, will be rejected.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The sense of the House, I think, is clearly against the Amendment. Many arguments have been advanced against the acceptance of the
Clause and I do not propose to repeat them. If my hon. and gallant Friend presses the matter to a Division, I hope that the House will soon come to a decision. It is almost inconceivable that any editor would, contrary to the wish or the direction of his proprietor, publish any such serious article, offending against this Bill, as would justify the Attorney-General in allowing a charge to me made against the proprietor. If proprietors are encouraged by this Bill to take a close and personal interest in the conduct of their papers, I respectfully suggest that it will be all to the good. The fact that my two hon. Friends, the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) and the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) see no reason for accepting this Clause suggests that the main opinion of the House is a right one.

Colonel APPLIN: Would the Solicitor-General state the position of shareholders as proprietors?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Shareholders are not proprietors. An Act recently passed by this House facilitated procedure against companies which are chargeable with indictable offences.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: In view of the feeling of the House, I am quite willing to withdraw the new Clause, but before doing so I ought to justify myself in putting it forward. An hon. Member has said that we have the benefit of being tried by a jury and that a jury would not be likely to convict a man who was not responsible. An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory. I was twice convicted at Hampshire Assizes for a libel inserted in my newspaper, although I knew nothing of it. My father, brother and I were convicted. We appealed. The case lasted 2½ years. We established the fact that that we were all away from Portsmouth at the time and were absolutely innocent of this libel, and we established the law at the cost of £3,000 to ourselves. Under this Bill something of the same sort may occur. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) suggested that we give instructions to our reporters and editors to publish filthy matter in our papers. There is not a living journalist who will not resent that accusation. No working journalist in this country would
accept instructions of that sort. If they were given, the proprietor would be doubly responsible. The Members of the House who have spoken have very little knowledge of the conduct of newspapers.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have a knowledge of what I am saying.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Then it is quite beyond my experience. I have been 60 years in journalism, and have never heard of such a thing. No man with any self-respect would take an order of that character from his newspaper. He would give up his situation rather than accept the order. I do not want to press the matter, but I feel strongly that the law as it stands, the law of libel, should be extended to the law which we are now proposing to put on the Statute Book. Otherwise it would be a great injustice to those who are trying to conduct newspapers. I agree with an hon. Member who has spoken that there is one newspaper which has been wrong in this matter. Why punish all the thousand papers in this country for the sake of one man? I defy anyone to find in my newspaper any filthy matter ere anything calculated to interfere with public morals. We are asked to exist under the liability that some careless man may publish something of which we know nothing, and we are to be liable to four months' imprisonment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir F. MEYER:

False and Malicious Reports.
If any person knowingly or maliciously publishes or causes to be published the names, addresses, or descriptions of any persons purporting to have been parties or witnesses to any judicial proceedings to which this Act applies, when in fact such persons have not been parties or witnesses to any such proceedings, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to three months' imprisonment, or to both such fine and imprisonment

Mr. SPEAKER: I have doubt whether this new Clause comes within the scope of the Bill. It appears to me to deal with another branch of the law.

Sir F. MEYER: My object in putting this new Clause on the Paper is to protect people from having their name brought before the public in an unfortunate way so as to bring blame upon them, without their being able to defend themselves.

Mr. SPEAKER: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's intention. My point is, can the Clause come properly within the scope of this Bill? Does it not deal with another branch of the law altogether?

Sir F. MEYER: I agree that anyone guilty of doing what is set out in this new Clause is amenable to the law of libel now, the civil law. He does not come within the criminal law. This Bill deals with offences which come within the criminal law.

Mr. SPEAKER: My point is that this would appear to be an Amendment of the law of libel. I am ready to hear a submission on that point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I suggest that the new Clause deals with a matter which is quite outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill deals with the regulation of reports so as to prevent injury to public morals. This new Clause appears to be a proposal to prevent injury to the characters of private persons. I suggest that it relates exclusively to the law of libel or defamation, and is not within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: That confirms my view that it is outside the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction on publication of reports of judicial proceedings.)

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave Out the words "or publish."
I say frankly that my object in moving this Amendment is to obtain information. But I would like to make my position clear. I have not in any way abated my hostility to this Bill. If I can find any support in any quarter of the House I intend to fight the Bill, even to the last ditch. Most of the Amendments which I have on the paper are seriously and definitely intended as far as possible to remove the clumsy injustices of the Bill. This Amendment I have put down because I want to know what is meant by the words "It shall not be lawful to
print or publish." What is the exact meaning of the word "publish" there? I am not a lawyer, although as a member of the Bar I was practising there without a practice until 1914. Since that date my knowledge of the law has been confined to the reading of the reports which are to be so much truncated by this Bill. I, at least, had the courage to confess that I read these reports and I believe that 90 per cent. of the Members of the House read them also. My recollection of the law of libel is that you can publish by merely sending a letter or a postcard. Is it to be the case under this Bill that if somebody who has been listening to one of these divorce cases, writes a letter or postcard to a friend in which he states anything about that case which is beyond the limits allowed in the Bill he will then become liable for publication under the terms of the Bill? The Bill does not say that it only applies to periodicals and newspapers. It merely says that it shall not be lawful to print or publish these reports subject to certain limits. I think it is the intention of the promoters that the Measure should be confined to publication in the newspapers. I took the trouble to look up the definition of the word "publish" in the dictionary and I find that it is
to make generally known; to noise abroad; to announce formally; to promulgate,
and then there are certain special definitions about reading the banns of marriage and so forth. Under this definition such things as the writing of a letter or a postcard would be excluded and I move this Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining whether the advocates of this Measure are quite clear that under its terms nobody will be prosecuted merely for writing a letter, postcard or any communication, or for anything other than definitely publishing in a newspaper. If the matters which I have indicated are shown to be outside the scope of the Bill I shall withdraw the Amendment.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment. I adopt the purposes of the Mover and shall endeavour to assist in allaying his thirst for information by, myself, asking a question. I wish to ask the promoters of the Bill and the Solicitor-General, whether the ease I am about to put to them would amount to publica-
tion within the terms of the Bill? Supposing the Editor or the representative in London of the Continental "Daily Mail" were to obtain full details of a pending divorce case and supposing—his brother journalists in England being prohibited from publication—he telegraphed those details to the offices of the Continental "Daily Mail" in Paris. The "Daily Mail" could publish all those details next day in Paris and send the papers here, thus entirely, or at any rate largely, frustrating the objects of the Bill. Undoubtedly in such a case there would be a very large sale of the Continental edition of the "Daily Mail," possibly even larger than the "Daily Mail's" sale at the present moment. Would that be publication under the Bill; and can the Solicitor-General point to anything which would prohibit the Editor of the Continental "Daily Mail" in Paris, over whom there would be no jurisdiction, doing this?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment in propounding his question as to the meaning of the word "publication" suggests that with a little more persistence in his practice at the Bar he might have found a very large field there. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) has propounded another question. I must not be taken as expressing any conclusive opinion upon it, because it is a question which might be quite properly submitted to a law, but I can conceive that an argument might be made in favour of the view that people who publish in this country, even by way of the introduction and distribution of large numbers of a Continental edition of any newspaper, could be charged with publishing within the meaning of the terms of this Measure. I do not see very much difference between both printing and publishing in this country and printing in France and then publishing here. At any rate questions of that sort are, I think, rather meticulous in relation to the plain intention of this Measure, which is to deal with the publication in newspapers and similar periodicals. If the terms of the Bill were too precise in mentioning newspapers it might facili-
tate publication in documents and periodicals which are not commonly described as newspapers, and we think it much better to leave these wide general words which are not likely to be misunderstood, either by the Attorney-General or the Judge or the jury who will have to administer the Measure, and will be well understood by the general public. I hope that the Mover, having satisfied his thirst for information, will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. HAWKE: There are two matters in this connection to which I would draw attention. Under Clause I, Sub-section (1, a), the publication must be in some sense calculated to injure public morals. It is very difficult to understand how a private letter could come within, that phraseology. I feel a little more anxiety about this Clause because that observation does not appear to apply to Subsection (1, b). One cannot conceive that if somebody in a private letter published something beyond the permitted matter that the Attorney-General would in any circumstances give his fiat to a prosecution. If, on the other hand, somebody made a practice of publishing these things in a series of letters for gain or for mischief, then I hope such a person would be included in the Bill.

Commander WILLIAMS: I am inclined to think that the word "publish" is of value in this connection. There are such things as cinemas in these days and, supposing a cinema picture were taken of a law court during the trial of a divorce case—which may be possible in the progress of time—such a picture could be issued, in the absence of this word, without any prohibition. We are legislating for a considerable period of years, and we do not know what may be the developments of modern inventions and what new forms of publication may arise, and we should leave the terms of the Bill fairly wide so that it can be applied to any of these developments wherever it may be found necessary.

Captain BENN: Arising out of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams), it appears that if a person were to print abroad and introduce into this country any offending matter he would be liable. Does that affect the free
import into this country of Continental newspapers? I am not defending the introduction of these newspapers for offensive purposes, but it is important that we should have liberty to receive foreign newspapers in this country. Is it possible that under this Clause it might become an offence to bring into this country French or Italian newspapers, and that the introduction of such newspapers might be prohibited on the ground that they contained some offensive matter? That would involve our separation from opinion abroad to which it is important we should have free access.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Why not insert after the word "publish" the words "or circulate"?

Mr. GROTRIAN: I do not like the word "circulate." It would mean that every boy or woman who sells newspapers in the streets might he brought in as being liable.

Captain BENN: If the point I made is worth dealing with, will the Solicitor-General kindly answer it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not want to be guilty of any discourtesy to the hon. and gallant Member, but, of course, one could propound all sorts of cases. I think I am quite safe in saying that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in sympathy with any particular newspaper abroad—

Captain BENN: I am thinking of people whose business it is to import newspapers into this country.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then they must take care, if they want to propagate any particular opinion in this country, not to be mixed up with the printing and publishing of any indecent matter.

Captain BENN: This is a perfectly serious question, and it is of great importance that we should have absolutely free access to well-known Continental newspapers for the purpose of keeping in touch with political opinion in foreign countries. But suppose those newspapers contained offensive matter, would the persons whose business it is to import them, not for indecent purposes, but because they are important newspapers, be offenders under this Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it is quite likely that they might be brought within the scope of this Bill if they really do publish in this country newspapers, whatever their origin or country may be, containing matter which offends, against Sub-section (1, a), and I think the House would be of opinion that papers of that sort ought to amend their practice if they want to circulate in this country.

Mr. NAYLOR: The Solicitor-General is probably aware that a large number of these papers come here, not only from the Continent, but from Canada and the States. They are circulated by firms who describe themselves as publishers, and, according to the statement which has just been made by the Solicitor-General, the firms which issue these papers that are sent over in large numbers from America and the Continent are to be subject to the provisions of this Bill, which means, in effect, that no publisher in this country who receives these papers for circulation here will dare to handle them, because he might be made liable under this Bill.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I think it is very desirable that these papers, if they do contain details of this sort, should be kept out of this country, but I really think the police already have the power to stop such periodicals, in the same way as they can stop the circulation of offensive post cards and so on, so that the point is really covered by the present law. It will do no good, and may do very considerable injury, to this Bill if we attempt to make any exemptions of this sort.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I feel sure the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) will withdraw his Amendment after hearing the discussion. It has astonished me on more than one occasion to see that it has been possible in this country to take action against offensive matter coming from abroad, when in fact, so far as I have been able to ascertain, almost the same type of matter might be, and is, printed and published here with impunity. I hope the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General will hold good, and that if we are going to condemn indecent matter in this country, we shall prohibit the importation of indecent matter from any other country as well. The great point against the
Amendment is that if it were carried, the whole value of the Bill would be gone, because it would mean merely that it would not be lawful to print, and nothing would be said about publishing.

Mr. TINKER: I hope the House will recognise that if foreign newspapers are sent over, they ought to be bound by our laws, and if they do offend, their publishers have no right to send them.

12 N.

Mr. MORRIS: We do not, of course, desire to import indecent stuff, but that is not the point. The point is whether newspapers imported into this country for their political views, and read in this country in order to keep in touch with political views abroad, if they contain any paragraph which might offend against the first Clause of this Bill, would be banned. It is clear that if the present Solicitor-General were the Attorney-General, whose duty it would be to decide whether or not prosecutions could take place, a prosecution would be instituted in these cases, but it may be that in certain other circumstances a prosecution would not be sanctioned, and the question would be determined practically according to who might be the occupant of the high office of Attorney-General at the time being.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I should not have intervened except for the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris). I happen to have occupied one of the offices in which it is necessary to consider whether or not certain prosecutions should be allowed, and it is quite improper and unfair to say that any Law Officer in these matters is guided by his political opinions. The function which the Law Officers perform is a judicial function, and they consider the matter entirely from the point of view of the criminal law as to whether or not there is a case for prosecution. I am sure that the view that it is a political question ought not to enter into the matter at all.

Captain FAIRFAX: I think there is no great substance in this point. It is a matter of common knowledge that Continental papers do not deal with these judicial proceedings, so that there is no likelihood of matter of that kind coming in through those papers, in addition to which the ordinary law of the country is,
as has already been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), quite capable of dealing with indecent matter coming in from abroad.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I regard this point as of very great importance indeed. It seems to me that it might be possible, under the Bill as now drafted, for purely political opinions to be excluded merely because there was a little paragraph dealing with something which, from our point of view in this country, was offensive or indecent, and which came under the scope of this Bill. I think it is very desirable that there should be no kind of Press censorship set up, almost as it were by accident, with regard to publications coming, not only from the Continent of Europe, but, as my hon. colleague in the representation of Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has reminded the House, from the United States of America, Canada, other British Dominions, and so on. With regard to the foreign Press generally—I am speaking at this moment as a journalist who has frequently to consult the foreign Press—I would point out that the Continental Press as a whole deals to a very slight extent with these particular subjects, very much to their advantage, but, on the other hand, there are certain references from time to time in newspapers in foreign countries where manners are freer than ours, and where comments on matters which we consider indecent are made much more freely than we should make them, which might bring them within the scope of this Bill.
In view of the fact that those papers have in this country a very limited circulation—take the French, German or Italian papers, for example—in view of the fact that they circulate here for the purpose of informing us, and serve the necessary purpose of keeping us in touch with Continental opinion, it does seem to me that we ought to have some Clause inserted in this Bill to prevent the very desirable proposals in this Measure, with which I am absolutely, heartily and fundamentally in accord, from being used, as it were, by a kind of accident, as a censorship of the foreign press. I think it is most important that we should make this distinction clear. I believe that on all sides of the House there is pretty general agreement as to
the necessity of the Measure, but I am equally sure that on all sides of the House there is agreement that we do not desire to have any interference with the liberty of opinion and the liberty of the press, and do not desire to have set up by this kind of accident any sort of press censorship of foreign journals.

Major KINDERSLEY: I want to point out that several Members who have spoken entirely ignore the fact that this Bill only refers to the reports of judicial proceedings, and nothing else. If I may take one instance—the case of France—there, as the House knows, in the case of divorce reports, no publication is allowed at all except the names of the parties and the judgment of the Court, and I think this point really has no substance at all. The Bill is confined entirely to reports of judicial proceedings, and, in these circumstances, I would ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: May I, very shortly, point out that while we are considering this matter, the importance of paragraph (b) must not be overlooked, and I would ask the House to consider whether every newspaper that is published in the United States to-day would not be punishable under that paragraph?

Mr. THURTLE: I want to reinforce the point particularly with regard to American newspapers. It is quite certain that reputable newspapers like the "New York Herald" and the "New York Times" would conceive it their duty to give certain details more than are specified in this Bill, in the event of there being a divorce case in this country involving persons highly placed in society. It might be that those newspapers, at the same time, might contain political articles of immense importance to this country. It might even contain an article by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) of very considerable importance to this country, or, at any rate, one which many people here would like to have the opportunity of reading. It is conceivable that if a report of such a divorce case appeared in the same newspaper as this epoch-making article, it would not be possible for people in this country to read the article, and I am sure the Attorney-General does not wish that to happen.
I would like, therefore, to reinforce the opinion, that there should be some change in the Bill to safeguard the rights of the people of this country, so that they may read whatever political opinion they like.

Sir F. MEYER: I should like to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the wide discussion it has received, and with your permission, and that of the House, I will, in a few words, say why I withdraw the Amendment. I put it down for the purpose of getting an answer, I think there has been a very useful discussion, and a very interesting point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I do not think it has ever been properly dealt with by the learned Solicitor-General. It only shows the difficulties into which we shall get with this Bill if we are not very careful. One question has been answered, and that is that publication is not merely to be confined to the printing and publishing of a newspaper in the ordinary sense. If we are to take the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman it would apply to publication of any kind as long as the Attorney-General gave his consent to a prosecution. That is the point I wanted to arrive at. Now it is made clear, I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the same hon. Member—in page 1, line 10, leave out from the word "details" to the end of the Sub-section—I do not propose to select.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "morals ", to insert the words
or in relation to the said proceedings any account thereof, or of the matters leading thereto, or concerning the parties thereto (other than evidence already given in court), written or supplied by a person convicted as the result of the said proceedings.
This Amendment, I venture to hope, is one which will secure the general assent of the House. As paragraph (a) now stands in the Bill, it admittedly introduces nothing new at all. It is agreed by the promoters of the Bill, it was agreed in Committee, and is, apparently, agreed now, that it consists of a mere re-statement of the existing law. I should have thought, in these days of
intensive legislation, when the flow of Acts of Parliament appears to be practically unchecked, that you did not want an Act of Parliament to re-state the existing law, and, therefore, I have put down this Amendment. I opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, as the House knows, and offered it my most strenuous opposition, with, I am bound to confess, not very encouraging results, because it was quite clear that the sense of the House was overwhelmingly in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. In these circumstances, when we got into Committee, I thought we had better make the best of a bad job, and that if this Bill had to go through, the best thing would be to make it as little harmful as possible. Therefore, I hope the House will not think my attitude is entirely inconsistent in first opposing the Bill and then moving Amendments.
The object of this Amendment is to put an end to what, in my respectful submission to this House, is a real and crying scandal, which demands some remedy at the hands of this House. There is a practice which already exists and is growing, that after a man has been convicted say for murder, certain journals publish the murderer's account of the trial, of his life, of the crime, and of everything leading up to it. I think that is a horrible thing, and publication of that kind is more harmful than anything this Bill is designed to deal with. I have heard from a member of the Bar who, unlike my hon. Friend, is also a lawyer, that a short time ago he had to settle a contract between a man who was being tried for murder and the proprietor of a great number of English journals, the purport of which contract was that in consideration of a considerable payment made to this man, who was on trial for his life, he should write and give to the editor his personal account of his life, of his upbringing, what it was that caused him to commit the crime, and details of the crime.
I am aware that the Home Office regulations against a condemned man sending anything to the newspapers for publication are very strict, but Home Office rules have not succeeded hitherto in stopping it, and I venture to suggest that this modern, sickly mania for making a quasi-hero of a man who has committed an abominable murder and exciting public
interest in the case to such an extent that, as occurred recently, the public go down in large numbers to see the place where the crime was committed, is deplorable. The House will be familiar with an instance a little time ago where a crime was committed in a house in the country, and the proprietor of the house charged 6d. admission to people who wished to inspect it, and I regret to say that crowds went. All that is unhealthy and is wrong, and in order to stop it I have drafted this Amendment, which I hope will be accepted by the House.

Captain FAIRFAX: I beg to second the Amendment.
It may be supposed that Amendments brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend, who has been a strong opponent of the Bill, are for that reason suspect, but I feel I shall only he doing him justice if I say that this Amendment is brought forward with genuine public spirit, not with the idea of damaging the Bill, but with the object of improving it.

Major KINDERSLEY: The promoters of the Bill would naturally raise no objection to this Amendment provided it can properly be added to the Bill, and on that point I think I had better leave it to the learned Solicitor-General to make a statement.

Mr. R. DAVIES: For once I feel that I can agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). I have been suspicious of all his Amendments up to now, but I think there is considerable substance in what he says on this occasion. I rise, however, to ask him whether he can give us an assurance that the Amendment we are now discussing, if carried, will meet the case he has raised. In 1924 I was standing at that Box and hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who were then on this side, scowled and howled at me because there was no power anywhere in any Government Department to deal with the sordid details of the. case to which the hon. and learned Member has referred. I support this Measure in the main because of the sheer helplessness of the Government Department concerned, which could do nothing at all to prevent the terrible spectacle which was witnessed at Eastbourne
in 1924. But will the Amendment meet the case with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked us to deal? I am not so sure that it will, because the Bill as it stands is designed to deal in the main with reports of judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage. I wish the Bill could be extended, and if the learned Solicitor-General can satisfy me that his Amendment can be included and will meet the case I have referred to, I shall support it.

Mr. MORRIS: While I agree with every word the Mover of the Amendment said as to the object he desires to achieve, and with his comments upon the abuse of entering into contracts with persons who have been found guilty for the publication of their career and of their motive for committing a crime—it is a proceeding to which we ought if possible to put a stop, because it has a greater effect than anything else upon lowering the moral standard—I cannot agree that the Amendment in its present form achieves that object. There are two classes of cases which appear to be outside the scope of the Amendment. Take, first, the case of a person who is acquitted, and who fills the newspapers with an account of the whole history of the crime. There are people who are acquitted in cases where, as we know, the acquittal merely means that there has been a verdict of not guilty, not that the person is not guilty of the crime and has no connection with the crime; and the fact that he has been acquitted does not mean that he is a fit and proper person to write for newspapers or that the articles are articles which should appear. Articles of that type can be quite as bad and quite as evil as articles written by convicted persons, but they would be outside the scope of this Amendment. There was a recent murder case in which a person acquitted wrote columns of articles for the Sunday Press, and in my opinion, those articles ought to be suppressed equally with the articles which this Amendment is designed to deal with, but there would be no power under it to suppress them.
Then there is a more serious aspect of the question. Take the case of a person who has been wrongfully convicted and wishes to bring his case to the notice of the public, not for the purpose of advertising the crime, or himself, but who, in
good faith, wants to present his case to the public. It is the only means he has of bringing his case to public notice, and claiming public attention for a wrong which has been done to him, although inadvertently, but under this Amendment he would be committing an additional offence; he could be proceeded against for the offence commited in trying to redress the original injury to himself. In view of the fact that the Amendment does not attain either of these two objects, I should like to see it either strengthened or withdrawn.

Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "person," to insert the words
while undergoing his trial or having been.
I think nearly everyone will sympathise with the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) in his object, but I think it can hardly be attained unless he adds certain words to his Amendment. His Amendment is limited to dealing with a person who has actually been convicted. It seems to me that even more harm is done by the information supplied by a person undergoing trial. If he would accept the words I propose I think his whole object would be attained. There was a, case recently in which a poor wretched girl was being tried for murder, and at the time when she was undergoing trial her sister supplied information, no doubt at very considerable remuneration, to a newspaper, which information was said to have been received directly from the girl who was being tried. It does seem to me that such a thing is an outrage on public decency. It is a cruel outrage to provide remuneration to tempt a sister to betray the private secrets of her sister who is being tried for murder. I have moved additional words which will cover the ground, and I think they will be far more satisfactory than the actual words in the Bill as it stands.

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: I beg leave to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I think the words proposed are very desirable, and the rights of the person being tried ought to be protected in this respect.

Sir H. NIELD: While we may applaud the object underlying this proposal, it is like a good many other intentions, it may lead to mischief. I should have thought that, on critical examination, this proposal would have been excluded on the same ground as the new Clause, because it widens the scope of the Bill very considerably with regard to statements of this sort. Upon the whole, I think my hon. and learned Friend would have been well advised if he had tried to induce the Government to bring in a Bill dealing specifically with newspaper reports of this sort instead of introducing the Amendment. I hope this Amendment to the Amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. NAYLOR: I wish to support the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Naylor) wishes to support the Amendment. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you will first dispose of the Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall confine the discussion now to the Amendment to the Amendment, and whether it, be accepted or rejected, we shall come back to the original Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment I have nothing to say one way or the other whether the words should be inserted or not. When we come back to the Amendment I have some arguments to put forward against it.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment to the Amendment.

Captain BENN: I think we really ought to have this question explained in more simple words. We want to know precisely what is being proposed. Let us examine for a moment what we are debating. The proposal is that in any judicial proceedings a party to the proceedings is not to be permitted to publish any article while he is being tried. Under the present law he cannot publish anything that will affect the judgment of the Bench, because that is contempt of Court. Any person who happens to be a party to a lawsuit is already precluded from sending a single word to the newspapers. That, however, does not deal with the question of conviction, and I
cannot believe that this House will approve of an Amendment of this kind because it has nothing to do with indecency, and it has purely to do with liberty.

Commander WILLIAMS: I wish to protest very strongly against the Amendment to the Amendment because it interferes with the ordinary right of a person getting statements into the Press of a certain type and character. If it happens to be indecent, we all want to prevent it. Under this proposal, a person is deprived of these rights, not only when he is being tried, but for all time. A man may live for a long time after conviction, yet he would not be permitted to publish anything about his ease, when it may be perfectly right and just for him to do so. Those of us who are not lawyers can see these things more clearly, because we are free from all those considerations which enter into the mind of a lawyer. To me it is quite clear that the Amendment is absolutely impossible and ought to be rejected.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have been asked to give the meaning of this Amendment. The words I have proposed are intended only to prohibit any contribution to the Press when a person is being tried. It applies only to
matters leading thereto, or concerning the parties thereto.
A person is not to be prohibited from making any general statement which he likes to the Press except in relation to the proceedings or the parties concerned. I think it is quite desirable that such a provision should be made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), among his endearing qualities, seems to have a detestation of lawyers.

Commander WILLIAMS: I have no detestation of lawyers.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have heard the hon. and gallant Member pour out his vials of wrath upon the profession, although I do not happen to know what his personal experience is upon which his observations are grounded. This is the only explanation I have to offer in favour of the Amendment.

Captain BENN: Would the hon. and learned Member explain to the House
what provisions there are existing at present to prevent abuse in regard to publishing such statements?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The only provision I know of is where an accused person may imperil the course of justice. My object in accepting the Amendment to my Amendment was merely to enlarge the application of this proposal. I think it is a most immoral thing for persons who are undergoing trial to be allowed to publish such statements. My object in accepting the Amendment to the Amendment is to extend my proposal to statements made during the actual trial.

Captain BENN: Not necessarily indecent statements.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: No, indecency does not arise at all, unless you apply it to statements made by convicted persons.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Now we know exactly where we stand. This Bill professes to regularise the reports of judicial proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals. Therefore, my submission is that it is absolutely irrelevant to the subject we are discussing to accept an Amendment which will have the effect of strengthening the powers already possessed by the courts to take proceedings for contempt. This Bill is merely concerned with public morals, and it is quite foreign to the purpose of the Bill to introduce an entirely irrelevant issue at the last moment on the Report stage which may seriously affect the liberty of the subject. A man might be convicted for exceeding the speed limit and he would not be entitled to make such comments in the newspapers as are generally open to him with a view of obtaining same amelioration in the law. You are treading on very delicate ground in dealing with this very important subject which may vastly affect the liberty of the subject, and I do submit that the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. TINKER: I must vote against the Amendment. I certainly disagree with the publication of sordid details, but in this Amendment we are going very much further. We are interfering with the liberty of the man who feels that he has had an injustice done to him by the ver-
dict going against him, and who afterwards wants to express his point of view. This Amendment would debar anybody from afterwards expressing his opinion as to what has been the injustice of the case, and it is because of that fact I am opposed to it. I am certainly in favour of keeping out the sordid details when the trial is proceeding, but the Amendment goes further than that.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must really dispose of the Amendment to the Amendment, unless any hon. Member wishes to say anything further on that point. Does the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Leeds (Major Birchall) press the Amendment to the Amendment?

Major BIRCHALL: I have no desire to press the Amendment to the Amendment, in view of the fact that I understand it may delay or possibly endanger the passage of the Measure in another place, and, with the approval of the Seconder, I desire to withdraw it.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. There is a rule which says that we may make no reference to proceedings in another place. I submit that it becomes a positive abuse if we are prevented from moving or accepting Amendments in this House because of the proceedings in another place.

Mr. SPEAKER: There was nothing disorderly in what the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Leeds (Major Birchall) said. The hon. Member may object to it, but the Chair has no opinion on these matters.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Now that we have disposed of the Amendment to the Amendment, may I make some observations about the substance of the Amendment itself? I think the whole body of opinion in the House is in sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) who moved the Amendment. There is not one of us who does not condemn the articles which are published from time to time, articles sometimes written, or perhaps I should say pur-
porting to be written, by the accused person, sometimes written upon information given by the condemned person, and sometimes, which is still more nauseating, either written or purporting to be written upon information given by members of the family of the condemned person. Sometimes the articles are published before and sometimes after the execution of the sentence of the Court. In either case, every healthy-minded person would condemn them without a moment's hesitation. The difficulty which the Government feel is not upon the principle of the question but upon the. Amendment which has been proposed and particularly upon the Amendment in relation to this Bill. The form in which the Amendment stands, I think, shows the difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend has found in bringing his proposal into relation with the general scope of the Bill. It is drafted in terms that were obviously designed to prevent it from being out of order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) has expressed the opinion that possibly it might have been held to be not germane to the general scope of the Bill. But the Amendment has been moved, and nobody can take any further objection to it on that score.
In its present form it is a very wide one. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at it, they will see that it would cover quite trivial cases as well as serious cases. It would, for instance, prevent anybody who had been convicted, shall I say of driving at a speed of 20 miles an hour, from publishing some account in the journal of his Motor Car Protection Association of the circumstances in which he was convicted. It would prevent anyone who happened to be charged with making a disorderly or improper speech upon some political question from publishing an account which might be in the nature of an apologia pro sea vita. The scope of the Amendment, as drafted, will therefore be seen to go very far beyond what is in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend. It will be noticed also that the Amendment, as drafted—although I do not object to it merely on the score of drafting—is wide. After the introductory words
in relation to the said proceedings
it goes on to say
any account thereof, or of the matters leading thereto
That is fairly comprehensive. I do not know how far you would go back in the chain of events before you would rule out anything from any article written by the person most directly concerned. It then proceeds to say
or concerning the parties thereto (other than evidence already given in court), written or supplied by a person convicted as the result of the said proceedings.
I suppose that would rule out any observation in any public print by any person who had happened to have been convicted in circumstances which would justify him, although convicted of a technical offence, saying he was not guilty-of any moral offence. I think, indeed, a review of the Amendment would show how very far-reaching it might be. It is not because the Government are out of sympathy with the object of the Amendment that I propose to ask the House to reject it. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave very great consideration to this question when an Amendment was moved in Committee. I think my hon. and learned Friend has been in receipt of a communication from my right hon. Friend giving him an intimation of the probable opinion of the Home Secretary if the matter was ever raised again in the House. He did give the most sympathetic consideration to this question. At the same time, however, the Home Secretary thinks that the prison regulations at the present time to prevent convicted persons from writing these articles are very stringent, and they are enforced by every means within the power of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. It is not always easy to prevent persons from pretending that they have escaped the meshes of the net which prevents the publication of these articles. There are newspapers, or publications — perhaps they ought not to be always called newspapers—which produce articles which purport to be written by prisoners, but which might more properly be described as fiction or embroidery than as something coming from the prisoner. At any rate, however, the prison regulations are very strict, and everything is done to try to enforce them. No prisoner is allowed to write these accounts, and no warder or anyone responsible for the charge of
the prisoner is allowed to be a channel of communication between the prisoner and the Press.
I think I may say that, if it were possible to devise any form of words which could be embodied in a Bill dealing particularly with this question, it might be that the House would be very willing to pass such a Bill into law, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would give it his most sympathetic consideration. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Home Secretary will introduce or consider such a Bill, but am merely saving that my own impression is that such a Bill might possibly secure sympathy from the House; and I think it would be more appropriate to deal with the question in a Bill appropriated to that particular question, rather than in a Bill which appears to have a different purpose, such as this Bill, which is comparatively limited in its scope. For all these reasons—because I think the Amendment goes too far and would interfere more than is necessary for the purpose of this Bill with the individual liberty of people; because it is not required so far as the existing regulations are concerned, since these do prevent what is sought to be prevented by this Amendment; and because, as I venture to think, the Amendment is not satisfactory in point of form—for all these reasons, and not because we are out of sympathy with its intention, but because we think it would interfere with the Bill and would be unsatisfactory in itself, I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The statement of the Solicitor-General, and particularly the remarks of the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha), have made it clear to me that this Amendment is not really within the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, I must decline to put it to the House.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I say a few words on that point? I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that had I had the opportunity of addressing you before upon it you would have heard me. I submit that this Amendment is within the scope of the Bill. The Bill is
A Bill to regulate the publication of reports of judicial proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals.
The Amendment is to prohibit the publication, in relation to the said proceedings, of any account thereof or other matters ancillary to the proceedings or connected with the proceedings. The object is to prevent, either during or after the trial, the publication of any statement obtained from a convicted person in connection with the trial and with the matters leading up to it. With great respect, I submit that that is in accordance with the Bill.

Mr. MOLES: On that point of Order. May I call your attention to the point to which you yourself, Sir, If I may say so, have called the attention of the House, namely, the scope of the Bill, which is
A Bill to regulate the publication of reports of judicial proceedings in such manner"—
and so on. And then may I invite your attention to the terms of the Amendment and their real meaning? The Amendment says
in relation to the said proceedings any account thereof, or of the matters leading thereto, or concerning the parties thereto (other than evidence already given in court), written or supplied by a person convicted as the result of the said proceedings.
Suppose for example, that there is a cause celèbre, and it is proposed to publish what would be merely a. biographical sketch of the parties. That would come within the scope of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, but I respectfully submit that it certainly does not come within the scope of the Bill, which it is proposed should relate only to the reports of proceedings. Upon that ground, I respectfully suggest that the Amendment, is not in Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must, after what I have heard, maintain the opinion that I have expressed.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "description," and to insert instead thereof the word "occupations".
This is a very short Amendment. The Bill says that in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, and so on, you may give the names, addresses and description of the parties and witnesses. I should have thought that it would be much simpler to use the word "occupations". I should have
thought that, if it were desired to curb the verbosity of the reporter in his instinct to make good copy out of the case, it would be much better to say that the man's occupation, be he soldier, sailor, tinker or tailor, might be stated, without going into his description. The reporter might say, in reference to some of my learned Friends, that one of them was a good-looking man with a flashing eye, while others might be described in less complimentary terms.

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Before this Amendment is put to the House, I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member to tell us what would be said in a report in connection with a person who was of no occupation at all, because I understand from the Amendment that it would be necessary to put in an occupation of some kind. I have always, as I have said before, been suspicious of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments to this Measure, and really, after what we heard from him in connection with the last Amendment, I am still suspicious about the one which he is now putting forward. I am sure that the word "description" is very much better than the word "occupations," and, therefore, I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. MOLES: I support the objection of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), and I do so because I think I am one of the very few practical pressmen who are in the House, having passed through every stage of the pressman's career. I really am unable to understand why my hon. and learned Friend should object to someone being described as good-looking, and how that could conceivably react upon the matter I am at a loss to understand. If, on the other hand, it should be the misfortune of some other witness not to be quite so handsome, how that could be any outrage upon historical truth I am again at a loss to understand. I object most of all to the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend that it is conceivable that upon occasions reporters might be verbose. I could quite well understand that coming from any other quarter of the House, but from a profession whose business it is to talk against
the clock and to indulge not only in verbosity but in florid and exuberant verbosity, it would seem to be the last infatuation of nonsense. As a practical pressman, whose whole life has been spent in the atmosphere of the Press, I think I may say on their behalf that in their conduct, not only in relation to the courts of law but every kind of human activity, they may well submit themselves to the judgment of any fair and impartial tribunal.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is appertaining rather more to the Third Reading. The question which we axe now discussing is a technical one, whether the word "occupations" should be inserted instead of "description."

Mr. MOLES: I frankly admit that I was addressing myself to rather a, general problem which might be connected by inference to this particular Amendment. Why should it be suggested that there is really any substantial difference here? I do submit this point to my hon. and learned Friend—for I am always very suspicious of lawyers' Amendments, for the reason that lawyers themselves are quite incapable of interpreting their own Amendments, and they have been known on more than one occasion to find one argument in support of a particular point in this House and then proceed to use another argument exactly contrary in a court of law.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I have indicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as I am concerned, I am disposed to agree with the Amendment, because I think that "occupations" is what is meant by "description." I think "description" is not intended to be otherwise than what is in the body of the Bill. And for that and for another reason I propose to accept the Amendment on behalf of His Majesty's Government. We are anxious to devote ourselves to other important matters, and as this Bill was passed by a large majority we do not want to run the risk of not having sufficient time left.

Major KINDERSLEY: I accept the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I oppose the Amendment because I do not think the House realises what is meant. It means
you are absolutely debarred in connection with proceedings of the kind mentioned, from referring to the sex or age or nationality of the person, and that is a. matter which we should not lightly propose without considering what it means. It may be of the utmost importance that the nationality of the party, or one of them, should be mentioned. It may be of vital importance that the public should know that a man was a young Egyptian or say an old man of a particular nationality. I will not give examples of this because obviously it is a very delicate subject, but it is going to be very dangerous if you are to debar in respect to these proceedings, any reference to the sex, nationality and age of the person concerned. I do hope the House will reflect what it is doing before it passes this. I quite appreciate the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman in moving the Amendment, and if he could add some other words to the word "occupation" such as "essential particulars" concerning the parties, I think the Amendment would be a justifiable one, but you are going to exclude matters which you do not wish to exclude if you move the Amendment in this form.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to omit the words "and witnesses."
1 P.M.
This Amendment is a very short one. Clause 3 states that the matters which may be published are names and addresses and description of party and witnesses. It is stated in the Bill that you are not to give the evidence of the witnesses, because in Clause 2 all that is allowed to be given is a concise statement of the charges end counter charges in support of the case. You may give the charges contained in the pleadings, but you must not give any evidence of the witnesses. That being so, what is the good of publishing their names at all? How is it going to help the Bill in the least? It may, on the contrary, do harm. That you should give the names and addresses and description of the parties I agree, but what is the good of publishing the names and addresses and description of the witnesses, when you are not. allowed to give their evidence? All that you are allowed to give is the precise statement of the
charges entered in the pleadings and yet you are going to add the names of the witnesses. What earthly good is that? The names of the parties and the charges I can understand, but what is the object of setting out in your report not only the names of the parties but of all the witnesses who are called, with the description, when you are not allowed to repeat a single word they say?

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to second the Amendment.
If we are going to suppress everything except the details at present allowed under the Bill, it is not fair to the witnesses that their names should be dragged in at all. After all, at present their evidence is given and the public can judge whether the witnesses are purely technical ones or whether they are in any way involved in any unpleasant or sordid details of a divorce case. Whether it be a doctor or a professional man or a servant or anyone else, at the present time we know what their evidence is, but if their evidence is to be entirely excluded it is very unfair that their name should be in any way dragged into publicity. I fail to see what object the promoters of the Bill can have when they are trying to cut report down to the minimum in giving the names of witnesses whose evidence is not to be printed.

Major KINDERSLEY: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. There can be no possible objection to the inclusion of the witnesses, because under this Bill nothing offensive in connection with the case can be publishes and the fact that the person is a witness in the case puts him, under the Bill, in a far better position than he is at present. At present the witnesses' names are published and all details, offensive and otherwise, are given in the evidence, but when the Bill is passed, the details will not come out and therefore, a witness in a case will be in a far better position than he is at present. I see no reason for altering the Clause as suggested and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir H. HUME-WILLIAMS: This is a matter of small importance and if the promoters of the Bill do not see their
way to accept it, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams)—in page 1, line 20, to leave out paragraph (ii)—I think that must be discussed together with the one standing in the same hon. Member's name—to leave out paragraph (iv) and to insert, "(iv) the judgment of the Court."

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move in page 1, line 20, to leave out paragraph (ii).
This Amendment is one of considerable importance and really raises a principle which we discussed in Committee upstairs, that is, whether the reports of divorce cases in future are to contain the signed statement or charges or counter charges in support of which evidence is given, or whether we should adopt the French practice of giving the names of the parties and result of the trials. My submission is that as the suggestion underlying this Bill is to cut the report down to the smallest possible dimensions [Hon. Members "No"]. Well, you are only allowed to give a concise statement, and I should have thought a concise statement was of necessity a short one, but perhaps it is intended to be a long one.
Perhaps I do not understand the meaning of the word concise—
A concise statement of the charges and counter charges in support of which evidence is given.
That and the summing up and the judgment is all we are allowed to give. The real question is whether that is preferable to the system of omitting everything altogether and giving only the names of the parties and the result. On the Second Reading, I and those who act with me made the most strenuous attempt we could to keep the existing reports as they are, because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that to suppress them would entail considerable injustice to the parties concerned. The House was overwhelmingly against that suggestion, and therefore when we got into Committee I took up the attitude which I am assuming now, that, rather than have a report in the
form in which this Bill allows it, it is better to have no report at all. I urge that solution on the House now. Will the House for a moment put itself into the position of a reporter in a divorce Court. In any other Court of the Realm his hands are not tied. He listens to the proceedings, exercises his discretion and gives a full report. Cases like the Haley Morriss case, murder trials, incest, cases very often disagreeable in their details are untouched by the Bill.

Major KINDERSLEY: I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. All judicial proceedings are touched by the Bill.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am sorry to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend. I repeat, "are untouched by the Bill," because the existing law prevents the publication of anything that is indecent, and this Bill goes no further. My statement, therefore, is absolutely accurate. The reporter may flood the columns of his newspaper with all the details of the Haley Morriss case, and take it up to the point when the girls were induced to come into the house and the statements they made after they left the house. The actual assault was not and could not be reported. That case, as it was read by hon. Members, was absolutely untouched by the Bill. The first thing the reporter must do is to procure the pleadings. There may be 10 or 15 reporters in Court. Take a charge of cruelty by a wife against a husband or vice versa. That is the foundation for an action for judicial separation. There may very often be 70 or 80 charges. They are set out in the particulars of charges one after the other. He does not know how many of these charges are going to be proved. There may be only 10 on which evidence is given. He would be obliged to have before him first of all the charges contained in the particulars, then he must listen to the evidence and take, if he is a wise man, such charges as have been the subject of evidence. Quite rightly, he cannot give all sorts of things that are included in the particulars, but he has to satisfy himself what the charges are, and then he has to wait and hear the evidence, and satisfy himself that evidence has been called as to No. 10 or No. 15, or something of that kind. He has to wait until the end of the trial
before he can send in any report, because it is not till then that he can know what particulars are the subject of evidence.
When he has done all that, he enters upon the most difficult task of all, not to make a transcript of the evidence, not a description of what A said and B said, not a description of what any witness may have said, or whether the evidence broke down in cross-examination—all he has to write, on the documents before him and such recollection as he can retain of the evidence, is a concise statement of the charges and counter-charges. I do not need to enlarge upon the difficulty of making a concise statement. Who is to judge whether it is concise or not? Not the reporter, because he is freed under an Amendment introduced by the Home Office. The responsibility rests upon the editor. The report goes in. The editor has to rely entirely upon the reporter, and how on earth is he to know whether it is concise or not unless he was at the trial? If the statement, in the opinion of some tribunal, is not concise, the proprietor goes to prison. Is that common sense? The only result will be that papers will not publish reports of divorce cases at all. The danger will be too great. Some people may think that an advantage. I do not. The House may remember an example which I gave on Second Reading, of two professional men, both of them doctors, who were divorced under entirely different circumstances. They were men to whom public opinion meant their bread and cheese. They depended upon the judgment of the public, and I submit that in such cases the public should have an opportunity of judging by publication of the details.
I suggest that in justice to the reporter, and still more in justice to the editor, who is the person who may be held crimiNally liable, the best thing to do, if the House thinks the publication of these reports is injurious to the public morality of the country, is to keep them out altogether. The French system has been in operation for a long time. It allows the names of the parties, it allows the result, and I would also allow by my Amendment that any points of law that may he raised may be reported. Our system of law, which we call the common law, depends largely upon the judgment of His Majesty's Judges, and, therefore, in the event of
a point of law being raised, I would allow it to be published. What I have to submit to the House—I know it is a very difficult question and one upon which opinion may well differ sharply—is, that the onus placed upon the reporter in the Bill as it stands is an impossible one, and that the commonsense solution is to adopt the system which has already worked well in another country, and if we are to cut down these reports and do away with the discretion of the reporter altogether and limit him within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, the best thing to do would be to cut out the reports altogether and save him and the editor the troubles that would hang like the sword of Damocles continually over their heads.

Sir F. MEYER: I understand that. we shall be in order in discussing this Amendment and the Amendment standing in my name, which is supported by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams)—in page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (iv), and insert instead thereof, (iv), "the judgment of the Court."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The second Amendment appears to be consequential on the first.

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to second the Amendment. I will tell the House why I support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment and why I put down the other Amendment. The supporters of this Bill want to have the best of both worlds. They want to reduce divorce reports in order to raise public morals; yet they want to keep in the names of the parties and witnesses and everybody connected with the case, for the purpose of holding them up to public opprobrium. That I conceive to be an entirely illogical position. They propose to publish, without evidence, certain facts connected with the case, and yet they want to publish the summing-up of the Judge and observations made by the Judge in giving judgment. It is grossly unfair that people should not be permitted to have their evidence published, and yet the summing-up of the Judge and observations of the Judge should be allowed to be published. I would be the last person to say anything against any of His Majesty's Judges. I believe
that our judicial system as administered in this country is the finest in the world, but Judges are only human and they do sometimes take a slightly one-sided view of a case and make remarks with which one does not always agree. There have been cases where the comments and tendencies of Judges have influenced juries, who, like the rest of us, are but men in the street, to go the other way.
It is most unfair that the comments and the summing-up of the judge should be published without evidence. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we must be logical and that if we are going to deprive the public of the right to obtain a full account of these cases—leaving out the question of indecent matter—that we ought to be fair to the parties, and reduce what is published to the absolute minimum. If we publish the names of the parties, the judgment of the Court and any point of law, that is quite as far as we ought to go. I admit that this matter was threshed out in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I would point out to those hon. Members who say "Hear, hear," that on the question of whether a concise statement should be allowed the voting was equal, 14 on each side, and the Chairman had to give a casting vote. In the circumstances I ask the House to consider very carefully whether they are doing justice. We must not have prejudice against people whip go into the Divorce Court, because, apart from any question of morals, one of the parties is not guilty. Many other people may be brought into a case who are in no way guilty of what has been described as "moral turpitude." We must do justice to them, and if we are not to allow their evidence to appear we should not tar them with another brush, as this Bill will do. I strongly support the Amendment and I ask the House not to be led away by prejudice but to give the point very serious consideration. I am against the Bill, but I would ask those who are in favour of the Bill to consider seriously whether the whole object of the Bill, that is to say, the raising of public morals by regulating reports could not be achieved even with this Amendment which cuts down the amount that is to be published in future, but still leaves quite clear all that is necessary from the point of view of the public and the lawyers, that is to say, the names of the
parties, the judgment and any points of law.

Mr. R. DAVIES: We are now discussing the elimination of paragraph (ii). We are coming to what is, in my view, the kernel of the whole Bill. To eliminate this paragraph would mean that the Bill would be absolutely worthless, and no one knows that better than the two hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment. If I may say so respectfully, they remind me of two little boys, who, if they cannot have things all their own way, will not play at all. Unless the Press is to report what it likes in the most sordid manner, they will not allow the Press to report anything. I am surprised that they do not go further and put down an Amendment that the reports of judicial proceedings in relation to divorce ought to be regulated by numbers, say: "No. 1 charged No. 2 and No. 3 came as a witness and gave evidence against No. 1." That is the logic of their argument. There is something else in this connection that I fail to understand. When this Bill becomes law, it will not affect more than 2 per cent. of newspapers, if that much, in this country. The newspaper press in this country, on the whole, is doing its work excellently.

Sir F. MEYER: The hon. Member says that this Bill will not affect more than 2 per cent. of the newspapers. Does he really allege that only 2 per cent. of the newspapers publish evidence of divorce proceedings, that is, the evidence in unpleasant cases? Ninety-nine per cent. of the daily papers do that.

Mr. MOLES: Is the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) aware that the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, by Resolution, has set its face sternly against the publication of the details which he says appear in 99 per cent. of the papers? As one whose life has been lived in the Press of the country I say that that statement is entirely inaccurate.

Mr. DAVIES: I am supported by hon. Members who know more about the subject than I do, but I repeat what I have said already, that I was compelled to come into contact once or twice with this problem when I sat on the other side of the House, and I am
assured, from my own experience, that there are papers in this country who delight in making gain and profit out of the sordid minds of a section of the people of this country. The Bill is designed to meet eases of that kind. There are newspapers in the country who will not report any divorce proceedings at all. There are some local newspapers which it is worth while any hon. Member reading, whatever politics they may express—

Sir F. MEYER: Name!

Mr. DAVIES: You want a cheap advertisement. These newspapers do not make a habit of publishing divorce cases, and the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) knows that the Bill is not designed to do any of the things he has mentioned in the House this afternoon. It seems to me that it is quite possible for a journalist to give a concise statement of a case heard in Court without recording all the sordid details which some papers give. I would not mind one bit if the newspapers which gave these details went into the hands of adults alone; but they often find their way into the hands of children. I repeat, if the two hon. Members opposite had their way and this paragraph were eliminated, the Bill would be valueless; and they know that very well. They are opposed to it, they have done everything they can to make the Bill inoperative, and the Amendment now brought forward is designed to make it ridiculous.

Major KINDERSLEY: I am going to ask the House, on behalf of the promoters, to reject the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) said that the object of the Bill is to cut down the reports of divorce cases. If he will read the Bill he will find that its object is
to regulate the, publication of reports of judicial proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals.
And I maintain that the restriction on the reporting of divorce cases contained in this Bill are such as will carry out that purpose without cutting out everything. The first proposal was to allow only the names of the parties and the judgment of the Court to be given. There may be something to be said for that, but
the present Bill allows a somewhat greater latitude. The promoters of the Bill, in order to carry out their object, do not want to cut out more than is necessary. We believe the Bill as it stands carries out our purpose with the least restrictions on what should be reported. Let me point out another thing. This Bill has had a very long history. It passed this House in 1923. It was referred to a Select Committee, and it was passed in another place in 1329. While I have the greatest respect for the legal ability of the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw, I would remind the House that in its present form it is supported by very distinguished lawyers, for instance, the Earl of Dysart, an ex-Public Prosecutor, the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Merrivale, and the present Secretary of State for India, also an ex-Lord Chancellor. That is a considerable weight of legal opinion to set against the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw. He has always consistently opposed this Bill and, therefore, I am a little afraid of Amendments which stand in his name. This Amendment also was very fully discussed in the Committee stage and rejected by 16 votes to four. I hope the House will pass the Clause as it stands.

Mr. MORRIS: I rise to support the Amendment. As it stands the Clause is very dangerous and very unfair. It gives power to report a concise statement of the charges and counter-charges. Any number of charges may be put forward in the pleadings, a long series of them, and they may be supported by the flimsiest of evidence. Under this Clause you cannot report the evidence at all. The evidence given in support of the charges or counter-charges, even the very flimsiest evidence, cannot be reported, and the public therefore are not in a position to determine the value of the report. That is a grossly unfair position. The summing-up of the Judge may be permitted, but it is a sounder and far more logical position to take the Amendment and say that the judgment only shall be reported. There is the further point, as to the foreign newspaper. If a foreign newspaper, not necessarily reporting indecent or offensive matter, reports the names and addresses of the parties, and a fuller statement of the evidence than is per-
missible under this Clause, they would come under the operation of the Bill as it stands and be liable to be proceeded against in this country. I think this Clause is a danger and a peril. If you are going to curtail reports under this Bill, it is much more logical to accept the Amendment.

Mr. WITHERS: I have been throughout a consistent supporter of the Bill and the criticisms which I make are not made with the view of destroying but helping the Bill. Paragraph (ii), which it is now proposed to delete was my proposal in Committee, and it took the place of another paragraph which was in a slightly different form. It has been said, and I think quite truly, that the whole gist of the Bill depends on this. It has been said, quite wrongly, that our intention is to cut down the reports of divorce cases to the minimum. That is not the object of the Bill. Its object is to prevent what have been called "newspaper stunts." We do not want the reporting of divorce cases to be made into a sort of public scandal. We want to regulate the proceedings within certain definite limits, and if we are to do that we have to say what those limits are. I have been very much amused to see the position taken up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). On the Second Reading of the Bill he made a lot of play, and rightly too, with the deterrent effects on newspaper reports of divorce proceedings. He said that it was absolutely essential in the public interest that the reports should be published, that in order to do that it was necessary to say something about the case, and that the object was to cut reports down to the very minimum of particulars. If we were to take what he says now we should have the parties, the points of law and the judgment of the court; we should not know at all what the allegations had been or what the charges were and the counter-charges. It would be no deterrent.
My suggestion is that this Bill fulfils all the necessary requirements. It prevents the horrible stunts—to use the vernacular—but at the same time it tells sufficient to enable the public to judge of the nature of the case about which they are reading. My hon. and learned Friend has tried to make great play of
the difficulty of writing a concise statement of the charges and counter-charges in respect of which evidence is given. I cannot, for the life of me, think that he really believes that if he sat in a Court for five minutes he could not do it. Any ordinary man could do it, perfectly well. The report is limited to the charges in respect of which evidence is given. You know from the evidence what is the charge. To say that highly-trained men like reporters cannot sit down and make a concise statement of the charges and counter-charges in respect of which evidence is given, is to accuse such very sensible people of gross ignorance, and that is not justifiable. My hon. and learned Friend makes great play that they must have the pleadings in front of them. He knows as well as I do that they cannot have the pleadings in front of them. The whole object of this paragraph is to prevent their putting out, the charges in the pleadings. If I remember rightly, the original form was a statement of the grounds upon which the action is brought and resisted. That did apply to pleadings, because under that you would be entitled to put out the pleadings in full, and the defences. But it was thought by the Committee that that was not right, and that they must be limited to the charges in respect of which evidence is given. I hope that the House will not be led aside by the herrings which are being drawn across the real scent, and that the Bill will pass into law.

Sir H. SLESSER: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am a supporter of this Bill. I must confess, however, that while I am a supporter, I have certain ideas as to what should and should not be in an Act of Parliament constituting a criminal offence. To my mind this paragraph errs in its want of preciseness. It is a most dangerous principle to encourage that persons should not know quite definitely whether they have committed a criminal offence or not. The word which I think is dangerous—I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) is this—is the word "concise." Whether an editor commits an offence is to depend on whether or not the reporter's statement is concise. That is a very uncertain and very danger-
ous basis for determination. If we are going to create criminals, as we do in most Acts of Parliament now, let us make sure that such crimes are accurately defined, so that a man may know -at the time when he is committing a crime that he is doing wrong. Otherwise the whole basis of crime disappears.
It should not depend on one mere accident whether a Magistrate or Judge is to say, "This is or is not concise, in my opinion." The truth is that under this Clause the editor is in peril all the time. The journalist is writing his statement, and all the time he has to say to himself, "Now, I wonder whether the Judge will say that this is a concise statement or not. If it is concise I am an innocent man, but if it is not concise my employer is a criminal." That is all wrong. Differences of opinion as to conciseness have arisen in this House. Some say that the legal Members of this House cannot be concise, but we lawyers pride ourselves on the fact that we are more concise than anyone else. Therefore, I say that, whether we forbid things or do not forbid things—I think we ought to forbid certain things under this Bill—the editor and newspaper proprietor are entitled to know beforehand what is forbidden. Because nobody can know until he is taken into Court what constitutes a concise statement, I think the paragraph is unfortunately worded, and that it puts persons in unjustifiable peril.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The matter is even worse than my hon. and learned Friend thinks, because the editor is the person who is liable. If my hon. and learned Friend will lock at Clause 2, Subsection (2), he will see these words:
Provided that no person shall he liable to he convicted under this Act if he shows to the satisfaction of the Court before which he is charged that the act in respect of which the offence is charged was done by him in the ordinary course of his duties under a contract of service, and that he was a person employed in a subordinate capacity only.
The reporter goes free, and the person who goes to prison is the editor. He was not there, but has to rely on the statement being concise when he has not heard the trial.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I cannot help thinking that this matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) seems to think.
It is not only the reporter who has to do his best to make a concise statement. The reporter does not follow his report through into the columns of the newspaper. Therefore, it is the sub-editor who has also to be satisfied that it is a concise statement. The sub-editor has not been in Court; he does not know anything about the case; but he has to make up his mind whether the statement is concise or not, and he has merely to guess. This paragraph will put sub-editors and editors in a very dangerous position. The result will be that. a great many of us who are newspaper owners, and are not much enamoured of this sort of stuff relating to divorces, will say, "This is too risky. In future we shall not report any divorce cases, because we cannot take the risk of deciding whether a reporter has been concise or not." I think that will be rather detrimental to the interests of the public.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) says if this paragraph be dropped, the whole Bill will be uselese. I cannot follow that line of reasoning. I thought this was a Bill intended to prevent people being corrupted by reading the details of divorce cases, and I should have thought that if you prohibited by law the publication of any such details you would bring about the object which you had in view. I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill, and there may have been some abstruse arguments to the contrary, of which I am not aware, but for the life of me I cannot see, if the object of the Bill is what it purports to be, how it is you will not effect it better by leaving out the paragraph than by retaining it. Therefore, speaking for myself, I feel inclined to support the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The discussion has taken a turn which was not within the contemplation of the Mover of the Amendment. In this Amendment, and a later Amendment which proposes to leave out paragraph iv, I think I may describe his object as being to substitute for the practice which it is now proposed to legalise, what is called the French practice—that is the minimum of publication, the publication merely of the fact that there have been divorce proceedings and that a certain result has ensued. This discussion in substance is
only a repetition of what took place in Committee and I think the Committee rejected the proposal by a substantial majority. But the discussion here has taken a turn which makes the word "concise" important and, on that point, I see some force in the criticism of the word "concise." The history of the use of the word in this connection is that it first appeared in an Amendment suggested by the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division but it had a rather different connotation at that time. The President's suggested Amendment was to the effect that there should be a concise statement of the grounds upon which the proceedings were brought and resisted. One can understand that in that connotation the word "concise" had some weight, but when that particular Amendment was amended and re-amended to its present form—
a statement of the charges and counter charges in support of which evidence is given,
the word "concise" had a different weight and it introduced an element of uncertainty into the matter. If the reporter has to give a. statement of the charges and counter-charges it is a little difficult to see what the word "concise" means. You cannot compress a statement of charges and counter-charges into less than they actually are, and when you use the word "concise," is it to mean that some charges and counter-charges are to be left out or are to be stated in such a vague and misleading form as not to give an accurate statement? If my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of the Bill thinks fit to agree to the omission of the word "concise" I should respectfully suggest that the House might assent to that course. Rut if the word "concise" is left out I think the House will be well advised in acting upon the decision of the Committee upstairs. After all, there must he some finality about these discussions. A discussion has already taken place before the Select Committee in another place; then there was a discussion in Committee upstairs and now we are having this discussion on the Floor of the House. I suggest that we had bettter maintain the framework of the Bill as decided upon in Committee, subject to such comparatively minor Amendments as the House may find acceptable.

Major KINDERSLEY: On behalf of the promoters, I am prepared to accept that suggestion.

Mr. MOLES: I shall have much pleasure in seconding an Amendment of that kind if my hon. and learned Friend proposes it. It has been truly observed that this is the dangerous part of this Bill and the practical difficulties have been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), who like myself has had years of experience in newspaper production. Had the reasons adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) been all the reasons for his Amendment he would have had a great deal of sympathy from me, because it is obvious that the word "concise" is a pure question of degree. One man may have a much more precise mind and a greater facility in condensation than another man, but each will attempt the task to the best of his ability though with quite different results. Yet in certain circumstances the editor who has no direct responsibility, who may have been ill or abroad at the time, who may never have seen the report, may be dragged into Court and subjected to a fine or imprisonment or both. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-West Hull stated exactly what is the practice. An editor is concerned with other and more important matters than the supervision of reports coming in from police Courts and other Courts. The fact is he never sees them, except in very special circumstances, and to make him the victim and the culprit for the misdeeds of another man would be as gross an act of injustice as one could perpetrate.
To that extent, my hon. and learned Friend carried me with him, but that is not his real reason. He goes much deeper than that. We are reminded that it is imprudent to trust the Greeks even when they come to us bearing gifts, and the whole purpose of every Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has put down on the Paper is to apply to the whole proceedings in the Divorce Courts the policy of "hush," when everybody knows there is no greater corrective and no better method for the prevention of detestable offences and of offences against conjugal felicity than publicity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] My hon.
and learned Friend says, "Hear, hear," but he is going counter to the very policy which he cheers.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member is alluding to me, I should like to point out what actually happened. When the Bill came before the House for Second Reading, I strongly opposed the deletion of the reports, and asked that they should be left in, and I was told I was very selfish in doing so. We then got into Committee and, as I knew the Bill was going through, I took exactly the opposite course and proposed that the reports should all be omitted. I was again told that I was very selfish. I am told I am selfish either way, and it is very difficult to know what is the standard of morality in this matter.

Mr. MOLES: I will not quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend on the standard of morality, but he surely cannot be astonished if plain common-sense people are somewhat surprised at the fact that he advocated one doctrine on the Second Reading of the Bill and the contrary doctrine on the Report stage. If there is anything in his point I make him a present of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's supporter, finding himself in difficulties, and perceiving the retort to which he was exposed, took a different line and said that you could not always trust the Judges; that you could trust anybody else but never the Judge; that Judges were sometimes biased and were afflicted with the weaknesses of ordinary mortals. He also suggested that you could not trust the reporters. In fact he suggested that the only people to be trusted were the persons seeking divorce or about to be divorced. Apparently according to him the only people to whom one should extend any kind of charity in relation to these proceedings are the persons whose conduct is the subject of investigation. If he thinks that view will appeal to us, I think he rates our intelligence and our sense of public decency a little lower than we deserve. The hon. Member is entitled to put his point of view and I am not complaining, but I hope he will extend to me the right to examine his position and to submit with great respect my point of view even if it differs from his.
Then we were told that if we published reports we were likely to create prejudice against the parties. Surely my hon. and learned Friend has misunderstood the whole position. The law in relation to newspaper publication insists upon nothing so vehemently as this—that reports must be fair and accurate and must not outrage public decency or offend against public morality. That being so, I do not understand the purpose of all these Amendments. You are, under them, to he allowed to report the submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings. Well, over 30 years' experience of the Courts has taught me one important lessen, and that is that, when you get questions of law raised, they centre around questions of fact. How are you going to disentangle the facts and confine yourself to an abstract proposition of law? I do not think that even the ingenuity of my hon. and learned Friend can find an answer to that question. As I say, you have to look at the whole scope of the Amendments. The hon. and learned Member first tried to get rid of the names of witnesses, but seeing the difficulty which would arise if he carried that point, when we came to the next question, he very astutely—and I compliment him upon it—withdrew that Amendment in order that he might not compromise this, which is much more important. But I am never very greatly impressed by slim tactics of that kind. They show that the proposal which he now has before the House is not one to which it should give consent, and that brings me to the proposed Amendment of the Solicitor-General.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The Solicitor-General suggested that we should leave out the word "concise." I think the best way to arrive at that Amendment would be for the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) to withdraw his Amendment in the first place, and then the Solicitor-General could move to leave out the word "concise."

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I cannot say that I am satisfied, because I had hoped for a great deal more than that, but I must take what I can get, and if the only concession I can get is the omission of the word "concise," I must
accept that. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Captain BENN: For the moment, I object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, because I desire to ask one or two questions.

Mr. MOLES: On a point of Order. I think I was addressing the House, and I should like to continue my remarks.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Unless the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) allows the Amendment to be withdrawn, I shall not be able to put the new Amendment to omit the word "concise."

Captain BENN: In that case, would it not be better for the Amendment to be accepted, and then amended by the omission of all the words except "concise"? Otherwise, how can we ask about the meaning of paragraph (ii)?

Mr. MOLES: If the word "concise" were omitted, the paragraph would be still open to criticism.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be better if the Amendment now before the House were withdrawn, and then we could deal with the merits or demerits of the word "concise."

Captain BENN: But supposing the Amendment to omit the word "concise" were accepted, would you accept from me oral notice that I would move to omit paragraph (ii) as amended?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that that could not be done.

2.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: Then I am bound to persist in my objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment, though I willingly concede to the right hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles) his right to continue his speech.

Mr. MOLES: I only wish to say that, from the point of view of the practical journalist, the objectionable word in this paragraph is the word "concise," because nobody can define what it means.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the House agrees that it is right to omit the word "concise," I hope hon. Members
will not do anything which will prevent that course being taken.

Captain BENN: But I wish to ask one or two questions, because many of us who come to this discussion to-day with only the knowledge of the Second Reading debate on this Bill want to know what the Bill really means, and I may say that we have had some surprises in the course of to-day's debate. Paragraph (ii) restricts the report to—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member objects to the Amendment now before the House being withdrawn?

Captain BENN: I am compelled to, because otherwise it appears to me that I shall have no opportunity of asking my questions. But what I would suggest is that the Amendment to omit the word "concise" should be put and, I presume, accepted, and that then you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would accept from me oral notice that I would move to omit paragraph (ii) as then amended.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That cannot be done.

Commander WILLIAMS: I object to the word "concise" being left out of the Bill. If that be the case, when it comes up for discussion, shall I be free to discuss it? Otherwise, I want to discuss thin particular paragraph.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: At the moment we are discussing a point of Order, and not the actual Amendment before the House. But I must point out that unless this Amendment be withdrawn, I cannot put, the Question, "That the word 'concise' stand part of the Bill." We shall have passed the word "concise," and it will already stand part of the Bill, as I have put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and,' in line 20, stand part of the Bill." If the Amendment now under discussion be withdrawn, we can start de novo.

Captain BENN: May I ask, with great respect, what, opportunity there will be for those who wish to ask questions not precisely on the word "concise," but as to the general meaning of paragraph (ii)?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Will it help my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) if you, Sir, will allow me to postpone my request to withdraw my Amendment? If so, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. MOLES: Surely we are in one of two positions. Either the hon. and learned Member desires leave to withdraw his Amendment, or he does not. If he does, then I take it my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General desires to amend the paragraph by eliminating the word "concise," and I should have pleasure in seconding that proposal. In that' event, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Bean) can discuss the whole point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is now going beyond the question of the point of Order. Is it the wish of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Captain BENN: No. I am anxious not to make difficulties, and, if I may say so, I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) will meet the case. If he does not ask leave to withdraw his Amendment at this moment, it can be discussed for a few moments longer, and then it can be withdrawn, and the word "concise" can be dealt with.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw has already asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and we cannot go hack. Is it your wish that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Captain BENN: No. I am sorry, but I desire to ask some questions. This Bill, as I have said, is full of surprises. In the first place, I assume that if this paragraph (ii) is left in, in the event of a case of this nature being opened by counsel, there will be no report on the first day at all. That is so, I assume, because, clearly, you cannot possibly report what the counsel says in his opening statement unless evidence is given in support. I am asking for information. The second point is this. What is exactly the meaning of
judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation"?
Does it mean judicial proceedings in this country?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: It would have no operation except in this country.

Captain BENN: But it does not say the judicial proceedings are necessarily proceedings which have taken place in this country. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) does not actually make law by nodding his head. If anybody, for example, were to publish more than a concise statement of the interesting matrimonial proceedings of our monarch Henry VIII, as I understand, and the fiat of the Attorney-General were issued, it would be an offence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On a point of Order. I respectfully submit that this is a discussion which the hon. and gallant. Gentleman ought to have raised had he been here—

Captain BENN: I have been here all day.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not quite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should have raised the point at the stage when the words "judicial proceedings" were reached.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was taking rather a curving line of argument, and I wondered when he was coming back to the word "concise." I would invite him to shorten the curve.

Captain BENN: My only desire is to get some information as to what sort of statement is permissible. In Nevada, I believe, divorce is comparatively easy. Supposing anyone published more than a concise statement of a divorce suit there, would that be covered? Take another case—the judicial proceedings for nullity of marriage before the Sacred Rota of Rome—a very important case, in which it was obvious that the Court in question desired to give the fullest statement in justification of the decree pronounced. Is that covered by this? It would be exceedingly valuable if those in charge of the Bill would tell us exactly what is the scope of the Bill as regards paragraph (ii), that is to say, in respect of what proceedings this concise statement refers. There is much more substance in it than the Solicitor-General thinks.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is such an agreeable intervener in these Debates, that
if I have committed any offence, I humbly apologise. I will do my best to clear up the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked, first, whether a statement of something which took place in Nevada would be an offence if it exceeded what is allowed by the Bill. If I were in order in interpreting the words "judicial proceedings," already passed, the Bill refers to any judicial proceedings, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had thought earlier of amending that part of the Clause so as to make it apply only to any judicial proceedings in Great Britain, he would no doubt have limited the scope of the Bill. I hope that answers his first question. The second question is not a general one, but a particular one relating to some proceedings in another place. No doubt they were proceedings—I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will desire me to express any opinion as to whether they were judicial proceedings—but whether or not they were judicial proceedings, it is an interesting point that might be raised. I beg leave to doubt whether proceedings of that character would be described as judicial proceedings any more than if the hon. Gentleman was to set up some domestic tribunal of his own to decide the matrimonial affairs of some third party. That is a legal question which could be properly raised hereafter.

Commander WILLIAMS: I really think the hon. and gallant. Gentleman opposite has raised a serious point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Commander WILLIAMS: I have not spoken before.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it doubtful whether the hon. and gallant Member did not go beyond a point of Order, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite raised an important point, because we are not quite certain where we are. I do not understand exactly what this paragraph means, and I do not think there is a human being in this House who does either. No one has told us what is really meant by the word "statement." It may mean anything. We have not had
the slightest information as to whether the word "statement" being enlarged can include, for instance, pictures of the various people concerned in a case. We ought to have a clear definition on that point. On previous Amendments we have not been fortunate in getting very much information from the Government bench, but I see opposite a most distinguished lawyer, and I would like to have his definition on this particular clause. I think we are entitled at this point to have it clearly laid down exactly what is meant by a statement in this respect, how far it goes, what it covers and various things to that effect. I would like to know what precisely is meant by "charges" and "countercharges," and what sort of evidence will he allowed in a statement.

Mr. WITHERS: There is to be no evidence.

Commander WILLIAMS: It means that simply bare charges and countercharges are to be put in. I think on the whole we have obtained something which we did not know when I rose.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the House ought to be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) for preventing the House from hurrying too much over this important Amendment. A great deal is at stake. Some hon. Members have drawn a picture of the terrors which confront newspaper editors, but a very much greater terror is going to confront divorced persons, and to that extent I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay in objecting to the word "statement." These people will be dependent on a statement made by a journalist as to what really was their mutual grievance. They will be dependent on that. statement of a journalist as to what the real grounds of their divorce were, and if we are going to restrict the printing of newspaper reports of divorce cases I think it will be very unfair to leave it to be a matter of opinion, the opinion of the particular journalist in question, as to what shall and shall not go into the papers. The promoters of this Bill adopt an entirely paradoxical and illogical attitude in opposing this Amendment merely because
it has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). I never heard an Amendment opposed on such a ridiculous ground. In my humble opinion the whole country will have cause to be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw and to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), who almost alone in this House have stood up for common sense and the liberty of the subject, and have taken an entirely worthy attitude throughout the whole of these proceedings. On the Second Reading they stood up for the liberty of the Press.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going wide of the Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to confine myself to this particular paragraph which we are invited to remove. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, "Let everything be printed, let there be complete liberty." Then the promoters objected and said, "Oh no, we do not want to get everything in, but as little as possible in." Now, when he comes forward and says, "Put as little as possible in, only put in the judgment of the Courts," the promoters of the Bill, with a sense of reason and logic which I am entirely unable to understand, say, "No, let us have some kind of statement." A statement is not what is required. All that is required, if we are not to give complete liberty to the Press to publish the full proceedings, is to have the judgment of the Court; and as between full publication and a mere statement of what has actually occurred between the parties there is no compromise and there cannot be. I do not think it is fair to the parties to subject them to the opinion of a journalist, and therefore I object not only to the word "concise" but to the word "statement," which enables the report to be a mere matter of opinion. By this paragraph we shall be doing a gross injustice to the journalistic profession and a far greater injustice to the parties, whose whole future happiness may depend on what is actually said.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I intervene in this discussion as one having no interest other than as a member of the public. I
am not a newspaper proprietor, and I do not practise in the Divorce Court—except on the very, very rarest occasions. I do not like the Divorce Court. In leaving in this paragraph I think we shall be in great danger of committing a grave injustice. Let the House think what it is going to do. Newspapers are to be allowed to publish a statement of the charges and counter-charges in support of which evidence is given, but, if one looks at the rest of the category of things that are allowed to be published, it will be found that newspapers are not to be allowed to publish the evidence or the cross-examination, but only to publish submissions and decisions on points of law, the summing-up of the Judge, and the findings of the jury. It may very well happen that some one is charged with cruelty—cruelty consisting of, let us say, a dozen acts of cruelty which are given in the particulars. Some of those acts of cruelty may be acts of a diabolical character, others may be merely what is called "technical cruelty," acts which are cruel but which are not of a, diabolical character. The jury will be asked to say, "Was the husband guilty of cruelty to the wife?" and the jury may find "Yes, he was." If the public do not know anything about the cross-examination or about the evidence which was given as to these charges of cruelty, what will be the result? Reading the report, the public will think the husband has been guilty, not of one act of cruelty, which may be what I call a "technical act of cruelty," but of diabolical acts of cruelty. That seems to me to be very poor justice.
If we are to interfere with these reports at all—and no one is more in favour than I am of eliminating salacious matter from our newspapers—it would be better to accept the Amendment and take this paragraph right out rather than to have such a mixture as a statement of charges in support of which evidence is given without any statement of the evidence to enable the public to judge for themselves whether it was ample evidence or not. [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that the judge's summing-up will be published.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It may be unfair.

Mr. DEANS: The judge does not always express an opinion in his summing-up whether charges are proved; in fact, it is not the judge's business to express an opinion when he has got a jury. What he has to do is to say "The charge is so and so. There are six charges. The first charge is that the man hit the woman on the head with a poker—or something of that sort. The evidence in support of that is given by the lady's mother. It is for you to-judge, gentlemen of the jury, whether you believe the lady or not." Then he goes on to the next charge, and the next. Sometimes he gives the jury a little bit of friendly guidance. He may say, "You have such things as prejudiced witnesses, and it is for you to say whether you believe the evidence." That is the right way of doing it. Finally, a compendious, question is put to the jury. It is not "Was the respondent guilty of this act or that act?" but "Was the respondent guilty of cruelty to the petitioner?" and if they say "Yes," then, I put it to the House, the public will judge the respondent to have been guilty of every act of cruelty and every act of misconduct with which he is charged. I say that is not justice. I sympathise, of course, with journalists in their difficult position, but this is not merely a question of causing difficulty for journalists who, after all, are a very able race, and probably can look after themselves very well; but I take up the attitude that it is unfair, grossly unfair, to any person who has the misfortune to appear in the Divorce Court to be liable to have a statement of this sort made and for the public not to be able to judge by what is printed whether the charges are made out. I ask the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw not to withdraw his Amendment, but to allow this House, which is the guardian of the public, to decide this matter, and I hope hon. Members will support this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and' in line 20, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 30.

Division No. 552.]
AYES.
[2.26 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Baker, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pilcher, G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish. Captain T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Berry, Sir George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Remer, J. R.


Bondfield, Margaret
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Charleton, H. C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lawrence, Susan
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Han. Sir Philip
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lowth, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Windsor, Walter


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
MacIntyre, Ian
Wise, Sir Fredric


Finburgh, S.
McLean, Major A.
Withers, John James


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
March, S.
Womersley, W. J.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman. F. B.
Wright, W.


Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Major Kindersley and Sir



Naylor, T. E.
Herbert Nield.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harland, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Bullock, Captain M.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Klngston-on-Hull)


Burman, J. B.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Carver, W. H.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Westwood, J.


Dixey. A. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Moles, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Sir F. Meyer and Mr. Storry




Deans.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, after the word "charges," to insert the word "defences."
This is really a drafting Amendment. In divorce cases sometimes countercharges are put in really as a defence. Therefore, strictly speaking, in order to make the pleadings perfect we ought to insert the word "defences." I think this view will be accepted by all lawyers practising in the Divorce Court.

Commander WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because I think it is essential that, having had the legal point put so concisely as my hon. and learned Friend has put it, we should also have the layman's point of view. When you have these charges made It is only right and fair—and I feel sure that the bulk of the House will agree—that you should also insert the word "defences," so that,
if a man is entrapped in a lawsuit, his side of the case somehow or other should be put in. We had a very interesting speech just before the last Division showing how cases might be piled up against an individual and how his actual defence, which might be perfectly good and solid, would never be put in at all and would never be seen by the public. That is the reason why I rise to support this Amendment. I think, in common fairness, it is only right that each side should have some means of putting their side of the matter. It does not affect the main principle of the Bill, but it does make sure that no man will have his character blackened without a reasonable chance of defence.

Major KINDERSLEY: On behalf of the promoters, we accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the word "is" and to insert instead thereof the words "has been."
Obviously, under the Bill as drawn no report, even a truncated report, can be published until the end of the proceedings, and therefore it is not a question of what evidence "is" given, but what evidence "has been" given.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that it will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), in page 2, to leave out lines 8 to 11, is not selected.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
Provided further that paragraph (b) of this Sub-section shall not apply to publications imported into Great Britain.
As the Bill now stands, there are two classes of matter which are affected by it. First of all, indecent matter dealing generally with all judicial proceedings; and then the specific matters in paragraph (b) dealing with divorce proceedings. The specific matters dealt with in paragraph (b) are, in my submission, matters which should only arise in
proceedings in an English Court of Justice. It is quite true that the paragraph refers to all judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights, and certain particulars must be given. But those particulars are of matters which really only necessarily happen in English or in Scottish judicial proceedings. When we remember that "judicial proceedings" in this Bill mean judicial proceedings in any part of the world, we see how inept is paragraph (b) when you are dealing with foreign newspapers reporting foreign trials.
What is the position? A trial may take place in Berlin or in Paris or in Kamschatka. It is a judicial proceeding and the matters which may be reported in a publication imported into this country and published in this country by an agent for a foreign newspaper must be confined to the matters set out in paragraph (b). They include submissions on points of law, the summing up of the Judge, the finding of the jury, and so on. The judicial proceedings in a foreign country may proceed on an entirely different system. I suppose judicial proceedings would include proceedings before a black chief sitting under a, palm tree allocating wives to surrounding cannibals. The very proceedings themselves, such as for nullity of marriage, may take place in a foreign Court under procedure entirely different from that in England. The result is that any foreign newspaper the bulk of which may contain political matter, literary matter, informative matter of any kind, may among other things contain a report of judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for nullity of marriage or for judicial separation taking place in America, France or Kamschatka or wherever you will. Under this Measure, if that report in a foreign newspaper, an American newspaper, is not confined to the matters set out in paragraph (b), which really are only appropriate to proceedings in the United Kingdom, the whole newspaper is in peril, and any agent importing that newspaper publishing an account of judicial proceedings in Kamschatka which in any way exceeds the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) is in peril.
How can a foreign reporter he expected to understand or obey the provisions of
this Act? The reporter in Kamschatka does not know that the report of the proceedings has to be a precise statement of the charges made, and therefore the whole burden is thrown upon the man who imports the newspaper into England. He will have to read that newspaper through to see whether the foreign reporter in Kamschatka has or has not precisely stated the nullity proceedings in that State, and if the statement made as to the proceedings, it may be on the other side of the Pacific, is not of the required conciseness, the whole of this newspaper will be in peril. Therefore, the matter which was raised at an earlier stage in our proceedings by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is very pertinent here. When you are dealing with immoral or indecent publications it matters not whether they are printed in England, America, or any other part of the world, but, when you are dealing with artificially restricted limitations on publications dealing with Divorce Courts, then you are artificially limiting the right and increasing the peril of anybody who imports a foreign newspaper.
My strong belief is that this was put in by mistake. What I am proposing is that paragraph (b), which is the second limb of liability in this Bill, shall be confined to publications printed and published in this country. I am proposing therefore that it shall not be an offence, unless the matter is indecent or immoral, in which case it is met by paragraph (a), merely because you have not precisely stated the matters set out in paragraph (b), to publish in this country a newspaper containing a rather larger account of a foreign trial in some remote country than is permitted by this Bill. In conclusion, I believe that this point has not been considered by the promoters of the Bill, and there is no suggestion in paragraph (b) that it was ever meant to apply to foreign judicial proceedings. Therefore, I beg to move.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot help thinking that, as the hon. and learned Member has suggested, it is a case of remissness, and that probably this point was not thought of
when the Bill was being drafted. I think it would be just, in the circumstances detailed by the hon. and learned Member, that the words of his Amendment should be inserted, and that reports in foreign newspapers should be placed on the basis he suggests.

Mr. R. DAVIES: It is very seldom that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). He knows more about the law than I do, but I hope the House will reject his Amendment. I feel very much more suspicious of it since it has been seconded by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). So far as I understand the position, the result, if this Amendment were carried, would be that certain British newspapers would be prohibited from printing and publishing certain matter, whereas foreign newspapers would be allowed to do exactly the thing prohibited in this country. I am not influenced by the argument of what a Government—even this Government, of which I have nothing good to say—would do. I can hardly think that even this Government, the worst Government of all times, would ever prevent a French or an Italian newspaper from coming into this country merely because it disliked its politics and because it contained a report in connection with a divorce case that was contrary to this Measure. I should be very sorry to think that they could be reduced to that depth of infamy, if I may put it in that way.
There is published in this country a newspaper called the "Daily Mail," and the "Daily Mail" issues a Continental edition. Now, unless I am very much mistaken, while the "Daily Mail" printed in this country would not be allowed to print certain information about divorce cases, vet, if this Amendment were carried, they could print the very same edition in Paris and sell it in this country. That, so far as I can see, is the effect of the Amendment. May I put another argument? I can very well see that, if this Amendment were carried, most of our newspapers which are now printed in this country would be printed abroad, and that would create more unemployment in this country than ever.
For the several reasons T have put forward, I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Major KINDERSLEY: I am going to ask the House, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, not to agree to this Amendment. There is a simple answer to it, namely, that it is really too ridiculous for words. No action could be taken under this Bill without the fiat of the Attorney-General. The suggestion is that someone who imported a foreign newspaper into this country might be prosecuted merely because it had a report of a divorce case which did not Colncide with the report which is allowed to he published under this Bill. The hon. and learned Member said that he did not mean this to apply to indecency, but that you might have a case reported in a foreign paper in a way which did not come within the four corners of the Bill, and he suggests that the Attorney-General is going to give his fiat for the prosecution of a man who happened to have brought in that newspaper. To my mind that is too childish for words, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Captain BENN: I think that this Amendment is being treated much too lightly, and I also very much resent, speaking for myself Personally, the suggestion that those who are supporting this Amendment are in some way anxious to permit the importation into this country of salacious matter.

Major KINDERSLEY: I did not suggest that.

Captain BENN: That is the general trend of the attack upon those who are merely attempting to preserve proper and decent liberty. What is this proposal? It is a proposal, first of all, to create the offence, and the answer of the promoters of the Bill is that the Attorney-General has the power not to prosecute. Let us see what the offence is. It is to be an offence for any foreign newspaper to come into this country which does not comply with this formula—because it is only a formula, although it has been devised as ably as is possible by those who are supporting the Bill. Any paper that does not comply with that formula will be guilty of an offence, albeit the Attorney-General need not prosecute. The formula
is that certain particulars only—names and addresses and so on, and concise statements—may be published. I venture to think that that is a formula which cannot be imposed upon the foreign Press.
I went into the newspaper room when this Amendment was suggested, and picked out three leading newspapers. It is not a question of French newspapers being imported by people who insist on sending into this country indecent matter; it is a question of leading newspapers. I took the "Montreal Star," and the first thing I saw was a report—I do not defend the way in which it was set out—of the case of a girl who was deceived into marrying some man. The second paper I took was the "Melbourne Age," which had an account of a case which I agree would not be covered by this Bill, but it might reasonably have a brief and perfectly decent account which, however, would not comply with the formula. The third paper I took was "Le Temps," and that had some references to the Rumanian matrimonial question—the case of Prince Carof and his wife—which undoubtedly did not comply with the formula. Those were certainly judicial proceedings. I suggest that we should not do anything in this House which will make it a potential offence, even with all the safeguards referred to, for people to have these newspapers in this country. I suggest to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that we are not dealing with the question of flooding this country artificially with indecent matter, but limiting the circulation of newspapers of a very important character, because it is vital in order that public opinion in this country may be properly formed that we should have absolutely free access to the newspapers of other countries. For these reasons I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he must consider this Amendment seriously. He may find that some slight alteration would make it better; I do not know; but the point must be met and dealt with effectively at this stage.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot help thinking that the suggestions which have led to this Amendment being proposed were ingenious suggestions, more worthy of a lawyer than of a
sensible layman. The various contingencies which have appealed to the minds of hon. Members have been, I think, remote from any actuality. This Bill is broadly intended to deal with the publication in this country of newspapers and other periodicals dealing with judicial proceedings in this country. If the Bill were drafted in such a form as to allow imported newspapers to publish precisely the same details which British newspapers were forbidden to publish, there would be an obvious means of evasion. Suppose, for instance, the objectionable paper to which some hon. Members have referred—whatever its name may be, I do not know—were published in Dublin or in France, and imported into this country in large quantities, I imagine it would be perpetrating exactly the same evil as if that paper were published in Liverpool, in Bristol or in London. Therefore, so far as the substance is concerned, I think most people will feel that, if we were to alter the Clause as is proposed to be done, we should make a very big hole in the net which this Bill is attempting to set up. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has produced three or four newspapers all of which are printed and published abroad.

Captain BENN: And in the Dominions.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Well, out of Great Britain. I understand the proceedings which each of them deals with are proceedings in those countries and not proceedings in this country. Let me, first of ail, deal with that. In so far as they deal with proceedings in other countries, I imagine that, although technically they might come conceivably within the scope of this Bill, first of all the fiat of the Attorney-General has to be given, and, secondly, the opinion of a jury has to be taken if anybody wants a jury's decision to be given.

Captain BENN: Do I understand that these cases must necessarily come before a jury?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They must necessarily come before a jury if the accused person so desires, therefore the opinion of a jury has to be taken.
Times without number juries in this country have refused to convict persons for offences for which they might possibly, on the strict technical understanding of the case, have been convicted and have said that those persons were not guilty. Therefore, I do not think this House need be very greatly concerned about the publication in imported newspapers of some information relating to divorce proceedings in another country. Of course, if the narration of these proceedings offends against paragraph (a), that is, includes objectionable details, the law would be quite sufficient to deal with that, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is interested in that aspect of the case.

Captain BENN: No.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: May I ask whether, in the case of a learned Judge who tried a case where a newspaper proprietor was charged, or a newsvendor was charged, with publishing a foreign newspaper containing accounts of judicial proceedings in a foreign country which contravened these Regulations, would not the Judge be bound to direct the jury that, if that report contravened the wording of paragraph (b), that was an offence and they should convict?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must deal with one question at a time. The other class of case that was dealt with was where the foreign or imported newspaper contains information or reports concerning a trial in this country. So far as that is concerned, I apprehend it would be a mistake for this House to encourage the reporting in foreign newspapers of proceedings, when a report would not be allowed in this country, that is to say, there is no reason why we should encourage a European or a Dominion publication to give details which we are prohibiting our own indigenous newspapers from giving. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind the case of the newspapers which he requires to read. The answer is probably that if a newspaper is posted to him or in insignificant numbers to individual persons, it may be that no Judge would allow the case to go to a jury on the ground of publication within the meaning of the Bill.

Captain BENN: That does not meet my case. It is very important that these
great Dominion organs should circulate in this country. It is highly desirable, and the point is they are not being circulated by post, but by agencies, and if they do not comply with the Regulations are they to be prosecuted?

3.0 P.M.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really so impetuous; I can only deal with one hypothetical case at a time. I was trying to relieve his anxiety with reference to newspapers imported in the way I have described, in insignificant numbers. I said I did not think any Judge would allow a jury to convict on the ground that that was publication within the meaning of this Bill. Let me suppose there is a wholesale importation by some person whose duty it is to republish the papers in this country. Then I apprehend that, if the paper did offend in substance against the Bill, it would be open to the jury to convict—if there was anybody who could be got at. I really do not think the House will suppose that there ought to be a sort of free legal licence to any foreigner to do that which our own subjects are prohibited from doing. I think, really, the point of substance which gets rid of this ingenious speculation is this: As far as the foreign newspaper is concerned, you will only be able to get at the person who introduces it in large numbers into this country. You cannot get at the editor, or proprietor or reporter abroad. The only person you can get at in this country is either the person who introduces it in large numbers and is, in fact, the publisher or re-publisher—and I do not see why he should not be aimed at—or the second person is the reporter who has sent the information from this country to the foreign newspaper. I do not see why he should not be got at, if he was not acting in a merely subordinate capacity but, perhaps, was a reporter who made it his business to supply information of this character to foreign newspapers as a trade and not as an employé of any particular newspaper. If he is guilty of producing reports and causing them, as he intends, to be subsequently published in this country in newspapers in large numbers, I think he would come within the field at which this Bill aims.
I hope the House will feel that the courts and the Attorney-General are to be trusted to administer the law in a commonsense fashion and in accordance with the objects and intentions of the Bill. Although hard cases and difficult cases may be suggested, that is an argument which would defeat many Bills in regard to which the opinion of this House is unanimous. I hope this Amendment will not be pressed and if it is pressed that the promoters will resist it.

Sir JOHN POWER: I wish to support the Amendment. I think the importance of this country being well informed as to the kind of opinion which exists in the Dominions and throughout the British Empire is something which ought not to, be lightly dismissed as being a case of individual hardship. There are, I am happy to say, institutions in this country to-day which are occupied almost exclusively in the diffusion of better information on foreign affairs. One institution which I am associated with has the support of the most influential members of every party in this House as well as the support of all the Dominion Prime Ministers without any exception. We have also received the blessing of the Prime Minister. I cannot imagine that a subject of so much importance can be rejected in such a summary manner. If the Clause is to operate in the way I understand it is it will mean that the people handling all the foreign newspapers that come to this country will undergo such a risk that they will probably refuse to take them. In that case I should like to know where our public men are to get their information as to the current of foreign opinion. Are we, now that we have become more and more a part of Europe, to cut ourselves off from the opinion of those who are now our very close neighbours? Before we come to any hasty conclusion we ought to take some thought to the new position we hold and the responsibility we have in regard to Europe to-day.

Sir H. SLESSER: The Amendment has not met with a very sympathetic reception, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Major KINDERSLEY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, agreed to.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put accordingly, and negatived.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after the word "person," to insert the words, "other than an editor, printer or publisher."
This is nut moved in any spirit of hostility to the provisions of the Bill, but for the purpose of seeking to place the legal responsibility upon the shoulders of those who, in our opinion, possess the power of initiative and control over the nature and quality of the appeal of the respective newspapers and printed documents that are concerned, and having regard to the diverse opinions which have already been expressed respecting the provisions of the Bill, we can safely say this is a novel experiment to deal with an admitted evil. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for North-east Leeds (Major Birchall) cited the case of a newspaper with a very large circulation in which, he said, after allowing for a third of its columns being absorbed by advertisements, 50 per cent. of the remainder was used for the publication of news which the provisions of this Bill would limit or exclude from publication. He indicated that the proprietor of the paper ran it for that particular object. I assume the editor is employed for a similar purpose, and I have no doubt the printers are equally conversant with the object of the proprietor, and desire its realisation. But there is nothing in the Bill, so far as I am aware, which puts legal responsibility upon the people concerned, the owners and controllers of the newspaper. The onus in this Sub-section is placed upon the working journalists. There are 4,000 journalists, 90 per cent. of whom are in the National Union of Journalists, and they expressed their opinion in no uncertain manner at their annual meeting. They said:
The effect of tins Bill would be to impose upon working journalists an intolerable and unwarrantable degree of responsibility in matters over which they have no effective control.
It is because they have no effective control, that I move my Amendment. This news has to be acquired by men in competition with their fellows who are serving newspapers of all kinds. They are sent into the various law Courts and have to produce their reports, and if they do not produce them with due regard to the public interest on the one hand and to the interests of their employer on the other, they undoubtedly run the risk of being dismissed from the service of their employer. In addition, under the provisions of this Bill if in his anxiety to serve the interests of the community and it may be the interests of his employer the journalist serves up a somewhat highly coloured, lurid report but by no means out of harmony with the true facts, the facts being stated in good faith, any one of these working journalists can be dragged into the Courts; any one almost from the office boy up to the employé occupying the highest position, and be compelled to prove that he has done something in accordance with his contract of service and that he is a person employed in a subordinate capacity.
In seeking to remove an evil, we are not entitled to create a greater measure of injustice to a class of the community who are rendering service under extreme difficulty, and who have displayed up to now great discretion. Why should we drag these working journalists into Court and place up them the onus of proving certain things, in order to escape conviction, when we all know that, in the main, it is the proprietor of the newspaper, the editor, and it may well be the publisher, who has initiated the nature of the appeal of the newspaper which results in these working journalists being compelled to supply such information. In these circumstances, I trust that the Amendment will not be dismissed without thought and serious consideration. I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dover (Major Astor), whose opinion I value, in my appeal that we shall do nothing which will injure working journalists and make their opportunities of gaining a livelihood more difficult. Let us remove the evil which exists, but in removing the evil I beseech the House not to create a greater evil and a greater injustice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it is a very sound Amendment. There is no doubt whatever that the people who are responsible for these objectionable features are not the working journalists. They have to do what their employers want. I see no hardship in this Amendment. It is the sort of responsibility which is to be found in other trades and industries. If a carman under certain circumstances supplies some comparatively innocuous liquor, which would do no harm, except in the opinion of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), the licence holder is liable to lose his licence. Who is responsible for running the newspapers about which complaint is made? There are certain men producing newspapers who have got titles, who ought to have got six months for every copy of the newspaper they published, instead of a title. Those are the papers we ought to deal with, the papers that produce all sorts of salacious reports. They must have agents in every part of the globe scraping up every extraordinary offence which has the least taste of salaciousness in it, and the publication of such details gives them enormous circulations. They are the people who are responsible. I would go further and say the proprietor as well. I commend that to the mover of the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member was a late corner to-day, and not aware that we have discussed the question of the proprietor at considerable length.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am glad to find that there is a considerable adherence to the view I have incidentally expressed. I think it would be a great hardship if working journalists, who have to make a living and struggle along somehow, have this penalty laid upon them. The proper individual is undoubtedly the editor or the sub-editor, the man who controls the paper, and not the working journalist. I would not mind if we had no reports at all, and it is extraordinary how well the country got on without newspapers during the general strike, but if any penalty is to be imposed I think it should be put on the proper shoulders.

Sir JOHN SIMON: May I point out in just a few sentences that I really think
the Amendment is based on a misapprehension. We have to see what is the offence created by the Bill, and it is no good talking in general terms about the difficulties of working journalists, difficulties which we all appreciate, without first seeing whether the language of the Bill would bring within its condemnation such cases as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has referred to. Nobody, whether he is a working journalist or any other sort of journalist, can be convicted under this Bill unless it is first proved that he has printed or published or caused or procured to be printed or published the matter in question. Let me put two contrasting cases. If it is true, as the hon. and learned Member opposite has said, that there are some unfortunate people who, whatever the circumstances may be, have been induced to scrape in all sorts of corners in order to collect dirt, which in due course the proprietor of a paper may perhaps print, if they are collected and supplied under a system by which the sub-editor considers the manuscript and decides what is to be printed, and that is the ordinary operation of any sub-editor in any respectable newspaper, it is quite clear—I assert it as a positive opinion—that any Judge would say it is not the act of the working journalist which has "printed or published or caused to be procured to be printed or published," because there has intervened the perfectly deliberate judgment of the person to whom he has submitted his manuscript. That is not going to be the danger. But there is another case. There are cases in which newspapers of a smaller sort are served by reporters who themselves are also sub-editors, and while we all naturally sympathise with the difficulties of the smaller papers—in my experience they do not offend in this matter—if there are cases where the particular individual has made a report and then is himself responsible for putting it in the paper, I cannot see why he should not be prosecuted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to put one point to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). It is true that a reporter on a large newspaper has usually to submit his manuscript to a sub-editor for approval or disapproval. It is true that the act of publication would be that of the sub-editor or editor, or whoever took on the
job of looking over the manuscript. But there is one point that is not met. If the matter is published, and if the reporter has been the person who has gathered it in, he can be tried in Court for an offence. I foresee one danger. The editor, who is the responsible person, might escape any penalty because the reporter has assumed the responsibility for publication. Let us take an illustration from the licensed trade. Under the Licensing Act the owner is, generally speaking, the person responsible for an offence. What often happens in the Court is that am assistant assumes responsibility and is fined, and the chief offender escapes. The assistant knows that his job is at stake, and lie takes the responsibility. While in the abstract the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken may be correct and unanswerable, we know that in practice a subordinate in such a case as I have mentioned often accepts responsibility and is fined while his employer escapes. But that assistant may not be tied to one job for ever. Disagreements might arise and the fine remains recorded against him. If it is not the intention of this Bill to prosecute the working journalist, the reporter, why not place him definitely outside the scope of the Bill. There is also the question of the local Press. Very often a divorce case has a local interest when it would not be published in a big national newspaper. The local newspaper proprietor, in order to increase the circulation and advertising of his paper may bring pressure to bear on the working journalist, who is in the dual position of reporter and sub-editor, to publish a report of the case. Why in that event the editor should escape scot-free and his subordinate be punished, I fail to see. I think this is a very serious matter.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not altogether convinced by the arguments addressed to the House in connection with this Amendment, but time is getting on, and if my hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of the Bill thought fit to accept the Amendment, with the addition of the words "the proprietor," on which we have already come to a conclusion in substance, I respectfully suggest to him that he might accept this Amendment and the next Amendment on the
Paper, and if it be found that the Act in practice does not achieve its purpose, and that some one has escaped its meshes, it may be that the House will have to reconsider the question.

Major KINDERSLEY: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I am prepared to accept this Amendment with the additional words suggested by the Solicitor-General.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "an," and insert instead thereof the words "a proprietor."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Sir F. MEYER: I do not think the House should be rushed into a decision on this matter. The Solicitor-General said that he only accepted the Amendment under protest, not believing it to he a good Amendment, but for the purpose of saving time. The object of the Mover of the Amendment, with which I am in every sympathy, was to deal with the case of working journalists. Why should he not also deal with the case of the working printer if his object is to exclude from these penalties all who act in a subordinate capacity?

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to move, as a further Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "printer."
In this connection the printer may be the man who sets up the type, or the man who prints the newspaper. He may be actually in charge of a certain department, and be none the less the printer of the newspaper according to this use of the term. I understand that cases have been decided which would make any working printer liable under the term "printer" as used in this Amendment.

Captain BENN: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so for the purpose of settling this question. I am not referring to the machine man, but to the man who is a linotype operator or a hand setter. These people know what they are setting.

Mr. W. THORNE: Not always.

Captain BENN: I am sure the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) would not wish such a person to be made liable if he did not know what he had been setting. I am also sure that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) when he made his powerful appeal for the working journalist did not intend to shift the load from the working journalist on to the working printer, and we should have from the Solicitor-General a clear understanding that the word "printer" in this connection means the person who has the contract for printing the paper and not merely the person who sets the type.

Mr. MOLES: While I find myself in complete agreement with the Amendment to the Amendment, I am in strong disagreement with certain other provisions in the Amendment now before us. A plea is made on behalf of the working journalist, and having been one for more than 30 years—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have decided that point, and are dealing now solely with the question of the printer.

Mr. MOLES: I was basing my argument upon the analogy. The sympathy of the whole House has been secured for the working journalist on the ground that an employé might be put under duress by his employer—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the House to go back to that point. We are now dealing solely with the question of the printer.

Mr. MOLES: I thoroughly appreciate that, and I was about to address myself to the printer. It obviously must be putting the printer under duress as an employé if he is to be required to put into type something that may be contrary to law, and it does not rest merely with the linotype operator, because the word "printer" conveys a great deal more, and includes every employé in the stereo room and in the machine room who contributes to the printing of the paper. Surely the House cannot contend that, while it will afford relief to the working journalist, it will not afford relief to the working printer, in whatever department of the printing work he is employed. But for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to which, of course, I submit, I was going to put
in a plea for the editor, who is also an employé and might be put under duress in the same way.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I am not quite clear as to what we are about to do if we eliminate the word "printer." It seems to me that the whole object of the Bill will be defeated if the word "printer" is left out of this Amendment, because I may point out to the Solicitor-General that, while I agree that the working printer should be put in the same category as the working journalist, if we eliminate the word "printer" here, there can be no charge brought against the master printer.

Major KINDERSLEY: In order to settle this question, I am prepared to move to insert the word "master."

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the word "master printer" is one word.

Mr. MOLES: It is two words.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then perhaps the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) will first withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. NAYLOR: Yes.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to move, as a further Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "editor," to insert the word "master."

Major KINDERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Captain BENN: I think we should be careful what we are doing. What is the meaning of this word "master" here? Does it mean the man who has got the contract for printing and circulating objectionable matter? If so, he should be punished; but what does "master printer" mean? It may mean a man who is merely in charge as a servant and for somebody else. We always have another place in which to put these things right, but I do not think it can be satisfactory to legislate at this speed, using terms about which even the Solicitor-General is not clear.
Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the Sub-section.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not quite know where we stand, because this Amendment would make the Sub-section read:
Provided that no person other than an editor, master printer or publisher shall be liable to be convicted under this Act.
There it will stop. The proviso which it is proposed to omit gave to the person charged the option of showing what he had done was done
in the ordinary course of his duties under a contract of service, and that he was a person employed in a subordinate capacity only.
That might apply to an editor or master printer, and why should they be robbed of the protection that was given to a person charged under the Sub-section as it stood? Surely if it were just that

there should be such a protection before, the same protection should be extended to an editor or master printer?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I respectfully submit that this Amendment is really consequential upon the one already accepted, because the last part of the Sub-section was put in in order to prevent a man who was employed in a subordinate capacity under a contract of service, from having to bear the brunt of what ought to fall on his superiors. Now that we have superior persons only in the Bill, this is not necessary. I do hope the House will now be able to come to a decision on this question; and not take up further time on a matter which was really decided on the last Amendment.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Major KINDERSLEY: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 33.

Division No. 553.]
AYES.
[3.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Finburgh, S.
Looker, Herbert William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Forrest, W.
Lowth, T.


Baker, Walter
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)


Barr, J.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
MacIntyre, Ian


Batey, Joseph
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.


Beamish Captain T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Berry, Sir George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gosling, Harry
Margesson, Captain D.


Bondfield, Margaret
Gower, sir Robert
Merriman, F. B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bridgeman, Bt. Hon. William Clive
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brittain, Sir Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Bromley, J.
Groves, T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oliver, George Harold


Burman, J. B.
Hardie, George D.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Potts, John s.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Charleton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G
Price, Major C. W. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H
Renter, J. R.


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ropner, Major L.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalton, Hugh
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jacob, A. E.
Sandon, Lord


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dennison, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, T.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Smithers, Waldron
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Withers, John James


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Westwood, J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wilkinson. Ellen C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Taylor, B. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Rhys Davies and Major




Kindersley.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cannock)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moles, Thomas


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Morris, R. H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Bullock, Captain M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Carver, W. H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Ward.Lt.-Col.A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cooper, A. Duff
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.



Everard, W. Lindsay
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 154.

Division No. 554.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Burman, J. B.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.



Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyte, Sir N.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Major Kindersley and Sir W.


Grotrian, H. Brent.
Moles, Thomas
Davison.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Edmondson. Major A. J.
Kennedy, T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Baker, Walter
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lansbury, George


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lawrence, Susan


Barr, J.
Fermoy, Lord
Lindley, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Finburgh, S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Forrest, W.
Livingstone, A. M.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Berry, Sir George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Looker, Herbert William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lowth, T.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bondfield, Margaret
Gates, Percy
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacIntyre, Ian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gosling, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gower, Sir Robert
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromley, J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Margesson, Captain D.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Merriman, F. B.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hardie, George D.
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore Sir Newton J.


Carver, W. H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Morris, R. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson,Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Clayton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R G.
Naylor, T. E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurst, Gerald B.
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jacob, A. E.
Ramsden, E.


Day. Colonel Harry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Remer, J. R.


Rentoul, G. S.
Smithers, Waldron
Westwood, J.


Ropner, Major L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Taylor, R. A.
Windsor, Walter


Sandon, Lord
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, F. C. (Absrdeen, S.(
Wise, Sir Fredric


Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Withers, John James


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wolmer, Viscount


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wallhead, Richard C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Macquisten and Sir F. Meyer.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are two other Amendments, which I do not select.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: On the Second Reading, I moved the rejection of this Bill, and I venture to ask the indulgence of the House on this occasion to say why I oppose the Bill. The main objections to this Bill which those who act with me have brought forward are two: The first is that it is going very largely to remove what the President of the Divorce Court has stated to be the deterrent effect of publicity. The Select Committee put this question to Lord Merrivale:
So that you think publicity is a real deterrent?
And the answer was:
I think so, and I think, too, it is very necessary to the administration of justice.
I think there can be no doubt that full and accurate reports of divorce cases, trusting to the discretion which is so properly exercised by the Press at the present time, have acted, and will act in the future, very powerfully in deterring people, more particularly of the wealthier class, from going into the Divorce Court. The second and more fundamental objection which I have to the Bill—and it is a. Bill which I think is quite unworkable—is this: The whole

tendency of the judiciary in modern times has been to open the Courts more and more to public attendance and public criticism. It is no answer to say in this case that the Courts of the country are left open to the half-dozen people, friends of the parties, who may go there, and to the few loafers who go to sit in the gallery in order to get, a warm and comfortable seat. If you close the Courts of this country in any sense to the Press, you muzzle the Press. The Press are the eyes and the ears of the country. The reports that are read of cases all over the country are what matter, and it is no answer, if you are going to lay down, as this Bill does, what the reporters are to do and what they are not to do, to cut down their reports, to emasculate the whole of the news that they give to the country about the proceedings in the Courts—it is no answer to say that you leave the Courts open to those who come in.

Major KENDERSLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given the order to clear the Lobbies.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 30.

Division No. 555.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bromley, J.
Dalton, Hugh


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Artor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Calne, Gordon Half
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Baker, Walter
Campbell, E. T.
Day Colonel Harry


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Carver, W. H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Barr, J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dennison, R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Charleton, H. C.



Berry, Sir George
Clayton, G. C.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Bondfield, Margaret
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cope, Major William
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington.N.)
Fermoy, Lord


Finburgh, S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.


Forrest, W.
Lansbury, George
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandon, Lord


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francle E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gates, Percy
Lowth, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacIntyre, Ian
Smithers, Waldron


Groves, T.
McLean, Major A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harrison, G. J. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hawke, John Anthony
Merriman, F. B
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Naylor, T. E.
Wells, S. R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Westwood, J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. sir Herbert
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor, Walter


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jacob, A. E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Potts, John S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsden, E.



Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kennedy, T.
Remer, J. R.
Major Kindersley and Mr. Dun.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rentoul, G. S.
nico.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Star)., Cannock)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Bullock, Captain M.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dixey, A. C.
Maxton, James
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moles, Thomas



Grotrian, H. Brent
Morris, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir Ellis Hume-Williams and Sir F. Meyer.


Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

BURGH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
These Amendments arise out of two errors that occurred in the Schedule, and the Amendments in the body of the Bill are consequential on these errors in the Schedule. The first error was with regard to the Burgh of Dumfries. It is now found that some of it is registered not in Dumfries-shire but over the border in Kirkcudbrightshire. The
other point is the case of the Burgh of Rutherglen. Rutherglen under the Glasgow Boundaries Extension Act, 1925, lost a portion of the Burgh to Glasgow, and that portion is now in Glasgow. We had assumed that it would have gone into Glasgow for the purpose of registration as well, but it turns out that in the Glasgow Boundaries Act the question of the registration of the whole borough was reserved to the Burgh of Rutherglen. That error has to be corrected by a small alteration in the Schedule. These alterations necessitate a slight alteration in language in the body of the Bill.

Captain BENN: I do not oppose the Motion, but I would point out that it shows the evil of legislating in a great hurry, and without proper consideration.

Electricity HOUSE OF ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bampton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 9th day of November 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of certain burghs and parishes in the county of Fife, and for the amendment of the Fife Electric Lighting Order, 1911, which was presented on the 9th day of November 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes or townships of Lower Hofker and Lower Allithwaite, in the rural district of Ulverston, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 16th day of November 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural district of Nantwich, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 16th day of November 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Eton Wick, Boveney, Dorney, and Hitcham, in the rural district of Eton, in the county of Buckingham, which was presented on the 16th day of November 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Merstham, in the rural district of Reigate, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 30th day of August 1926, be approved, subject to the omission from the Second Schedule to the Order of the following streets, viz.:—
Alderstead Lane;
Church Lane;
Gatton Bottom;
Blechingley Road;
Roadway on the bridge carrying road between Jofiffe Row and Brighton Road over the Southern Railway."—[Lieut-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Four o'Clock until Monday, lath December.